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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false — the description's 'sealed on chain' and the auth requirement explain why it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world operation. It adds real context (irreversible on-chain anchoring, credential needed) but says nothing about failure modes, quota, or whether a re-export produces a new seal.

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, zero filler. The output/artifact and its tamper-evidence property come first, the verification pointer and prerequisite follow — well front-loaded.

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 should carry the return shape; it says JSON plus a sealed hash but not whether the response is the register itself, a download reference, or the seal identifier. Everything else an agent needs (auth, irreversible side effect, verify counterpart) is present.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no fake parameter prose, though it also does not clarify whether scope comes implicitly from the API key's organization.

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 verb (export) and resource (AI Act register), names the output format (JSON), and adds the distinguishing trait — the SHA-256 seal anchored on chain. It is unambiguously separable from ai_act_register (build the register) and ai_act_verify_export (check the seal).

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?

Explicitly frames the use case (handing evidence to customers, auditors, regulators) and names the alternative verbatim: 'check with ai_act_verify_export'. It also states a precondition (organization API key), so the agent knows when it can even call it.

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