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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it co-signs and builds evidence, but does not clarify potential side effects or state changes beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by warnings. Every sentence serves a clear function, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary length.

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 nested attestation object and multiple constraints, the description lacks essential usage context, parameter explanation, and outcome details. The experimental and disclaimer text does not compensate for the missing operational guidance.

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 description does not explain the two required parameters, 'attestation' and 'signature'. The schema provides detailed structure and enum values, but the description adds no semantic meaning, leaving parameter roles and relationships underspecified.

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 identifies the action ('co-sign') and the object ('test-network pool outcome'), and explains the purpose ('build portable completion evidence'). It is specific enough to distinguish the tool's intent, though it does not detail the exact parameters.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It includes experimental and safety warnings, but does not explain conditions or context that would indicate this tool is appropriate.

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