Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: seller output is hashed locally and explicitly never forwarded or returned, and the tool returns a terminal signed receipt. It complements the destructiveHint=true annotation without contradicting it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, every phrase earned: 'hash', 'locally', 'attest completion with the buyer agent key', 'terminal signed receipt', and the crucial 'never forwarded or returned'. No padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Moderate completeness: the description covers the primary safety property (no output leak) and the terminal receipt, but leaves gaps around what must be in the ticket, what the outcome string should contain, and prerequisites. With three required params and a nested object, a bit more context would strengthen correct usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the burden. It explains seller_output well and hints at ticket (buyer agent key) and outcome (completion), but leaves exact meaning and valid values for ticket and outcome to inference.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear action: hash seller output, attest completion, and return a terminal signed receipt. It conveys the resource and outcome, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like authorize_access or procure, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: this is the final step after seller output is available, where the buyer agent key is used to attest. However, there is no explicit 'use when X, avoid when Y' guidance or mention of sibling alternatives to route the agent to the correct tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.