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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the HS256 signing scheme, offline verification against a canonical key, the embedded claims (license context, usage counts, Tempo Merkle root, sub/iat/exp/jti/aud), the 365-day window cap, and required auth (audit-scoped OPEDD_BUYER_TOKEN or OPEDD_BUYER_JWT).

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-loaded with the action and endpoint, then the return payload, then the critical scope disclaimer. Dense but nearly every sentence earns its place; the JWT claim enumeration and the INVARIANTS.md W1.6 citation are slightly verbose for a description field.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so concretely (freshly-signed JWT with named claims and offline verifiability). Auth requirements, window cap, and scoping defaults are all present, leaving no gap an agent would need to guess at.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning the schema does not carry alone by stating the default window is license-wide and reinforcing the hard 365-day cap, though it does not add format detail beyond the ISO 8601 notes already in the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Issue a signed compliance attestation (a JWT) for a specific license' with the exact endpoint. It explicitly carves out scope against a sibling ('this is the buyer-side attestation ONLY... that lives on the rsl_get tool'), so an agent can distinguish it from verify_license, get_compliance_dossier, and rsl_get without opening schemas.

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?

States when to use it ('the artifact a buyer hands to legal/procurement as evidence of where its content came from') and explicitly when not to ('does NOT discharge a publisher's CDSM Article 4(3) reservation obligation'), naming the alternative tool and variant (rsl_get with jsonld=true). This is textbook when/when-not/alternative routing.

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