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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation requires authorization and produces a signed custody hop, but it does not explain side effects, whether the chain is mutated irreversibly, what validation occurs, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with seven parameters, this is thin.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a short summary, though it could benefit from a second sentence covering key behavioral or parameter context.

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 seven parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse to be complete. It mentions authorization and signing but leaves the agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly or understand its effects.

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 0% and the description mentions no parameter names or meanings. Seven parameters—including required chain_id and custodian plus optional store, jurisdiction, custodian_class, received_at_min, and released_at_min—are entirely undocumented beyond their schema types. The description adds no semantic guidance for any parameter.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Extend the travelling logger with a signed custody hop.' This is clearly a mutation that appends to a custody chain. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like custodian_standing or grade_chain, but the core action is understandable.

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 only usage guidance is 'Requires Authorization,' which is a precondition rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no mention of when to choose this tool over alternatives such as originate_envelope or grade_chain, and no exclusions or context for use.

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