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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the attestation is 'signed' and intended for presentation to other services, and it requires prior interaction. However, it does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. This is adequate but not rich; it provides some behavioral context (the prerequisite) but lacks depth about side effects or on-chain implications.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core action, and uses exactly two sentences to convey purpose, use case, and a key prerequisite. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition. It is excellently structured for quick comprehension.

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?

For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and prerequisite but leaves out parameter semantics entirely. While the return value is implicitly an attestation, the lack of context for 'model' and 'token' creates ambiguity. It is adequate for a simple 'get' operation but could be more complete with parameter details.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the parameters 'model' or 'token' at all. The schema only lists them as strings with no descriptions. Since the semantics of these parameters is completely unexplained, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, making it nearly impossible to know how to fill them correctly.

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 the tool's function: 'Get a signed...attestation of your interactions here.' It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (signed attestation), and the prerequisite (interact first) helps distinguish it from sibling tools like fomite_patient_zero_token or fomite_relay. The purpose is immediately 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 description provides clear usage context by explaining the requirement: 'Requires you to have interacted first (leave a relay message, answer the question, add a commons note).' It implies when not to use (if you haven't interacted) but does not explicitly name alternatives among the sibling tools. This is 'clear context, no exclusions' rather than explicit when/alternatives, so it earns a 4.

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