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

Annotations only state readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false. The description adds substantive behavior beyond that: the receipt is cryptographically signed (keys at /.well-known/jwks.json), committed to the ledger, conforms to rights-receipt/1, and must be shipped as <file>.rights.json. It does not mention ttl/expiry semantics or the idempotency_key retry behavior, which would be valuable for a write operation.

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 trigger clause is front-loaded and the supporting detail (standard, signing, filename, example payload) follows compactly. The inline JSON example is dense but directly actionable, and there is little filler prose for a definition of this complexity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description does cover the produced artifact and its delivery path. But for a 9-parameter tool with nested objects and only 22% schema coverage, several parameters (ttl_days, resource_id, attribution, agent) go unexplained, which is a real gap despite the otherwise rich framing.

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 only 22%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: the worked example pins down the sha256 format (64-hex of the file), the license string, intended_use shape, and asset.kind/name. It says nothing about ttl_days, resource_id, attribution, or agent, leaving several meaningful parameters unelaborated in both schema and description.

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 precise verb+resource ('Issue a Rights Receipt') and defines the artifact concretely: a signed proof binding a file's SHA-256 to its license, intended use, verdict and duties. However, it never distinguishes this tool from the very similarly named sibling issue_rights_manifest, which an agent must disambiguate before choosing.

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?

It gives a clear conditional trigger: 'Use when your principal wants signed proof that one asset you ship was cleared.' That is real when-to-use guidance, but there is no when-not guidance and no reference to the closest alternative (issue_rights_manifest), so the routing decision is left partly to inference.

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