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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the verification behavior and the release condition, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if it has side effects. The trailing 'Record only.' is ambiguous and could be interpreted as a read-only note, but it is not clear. More explicit disclosure of non-mutating behavior would improve transparency.

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?

The description is a single paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then details checks, output, and the optional record. It is efficient with no filler, though the 'Record only.' phrase adds slight ambiguity. Overall, it is appropriately concise and structured.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description explains the return format sufficiently (per-field status, documents, disagreements, release flag). It covers the parameters and their interactions. However, the ambiguous 'Record only.' and the lack of explicit error or edge-case behavior leave some gaps. For a tool with this complexity, a bit more detail would enhance completeness.

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?

The schema descriptions already cover all parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining how readings relate to documents and how records optionally interact, but it does not add significant syntax or format details beyond the schema. The added value is moderate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to certify a packet of documents against readings. It specifies the exact operation (checking readings, comparing fields across documents), the output (per-field status, documents stating it, disagreements), and the optional record check. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools, which mostly deal with connections, audits, and actions.

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?

The description provides clear context on what the tool does, including when the optional record parameter is used and the release condition. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to siblings. The guidance is implicit but sufficient for an agent to infer when to use it.

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