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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds valuable disclosure: the two return sets must NOT be conflated, and it explains what each set proves. Critically it pre-empts a likely misinterpretation by stating found:false means no information rather than a negative signal.

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?

Front-loads the differentiator in sentence one, then explains the return shape and the false-negative trap. No sentence is filler; the length is justified by the misinterpretation risk it defuses.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return semantics (two sets, found:false meaning) — a strong compensation. The gap is that with zero required parameters it never says whether the call can be made with neither entity nor agentId, nor what to do if both are supplied.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters carry their own description, so the schema does the work. The tool description adds nothing about entity vs agentId, including whether either is required or whether both may be supplied — baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource and return: the counterparty's self-attestation against the OceanAlt Agent Control Baseline. It explicitly distinguishes itself from address screening in the first two sentences, so an agent can route between this and screen_address without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear semantic contrast to the screening tools ('whether an address is risky' vs 'how much damage the agent could do'), which functions as a when-to-use rule. It stops short of naming the sibling write tool attest_control_baseline or baseline_controls, so the boundary with those two is left to inference.

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