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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal the return payload (risk score, threat findings, signed envelope) and the verification mechanism (JWKS endpoint with kid rnwy-mcp-v1). However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether any network calls are made, or if special permissions are required. This is moderate transparency but not exhaustive.

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 sentence that packs all essential information: signing algorithm, scope, output components, and verification mechanic. No redundant or filler text. It is front-loaded with the most important detail (signed attestation) and remains succinct.

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 the single-parameter schema and absence of an output schema, the description appropriately explains what is returned (risk score, threat findings, signed envelope) and how to verify it. It does not elaborate on the meaning of the risk score or the format of threat findings, but those are secondary for correct invocation. The tool appears simple enough that the description is adequate for an agent to decide to call it.

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 already describes the only parameter canonical_id with a clear example. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond the schema description. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states it produces an ES256-signed attestation for any MCP server, and enumerates the outputs: risk score, threat findings, and a signed envelope. The verb is implicit but the noun 'attestation' with the details makes the function unmistakable. Sibling tools (address_age, network_stats, etc.) are thematically distinct, so no confusion.

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 context is clear: use this when you need an attestation for an MCP server, identified by canonical_id. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough that the intended usage is implied. No exclusions are stated, but the tool's unique function is obvious.

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