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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses stateless input, cost (0.25 USDC), signature mechanism (Ed25519), retention policy (signed report retained, raw events not), and limitation (signature proves integrity, not auditing). This is comprehensive and adds significant value beyond what structured fields could provide.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose/usage, cost/statelessness, signature/retention. It is well-structured and concise, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but is effective as is.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention what is returned (signed report?). The complex input schema (nested objects, many properties) is not elaborated. Given the high complexity and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. More detail on return value and parameter semantics would be needed.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (events, baseCurrency, exchangeRates, currentCashBalance, currentCashBalances). It mentions 'events' generically but gives no detail on structure or relationships. This is a critical gap.

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 purpose: producing a tamper-evident Ed25519-signed profit calculation for sharing or verification. It uses a specific verb (attest) and resource (profit calculation). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like profit_calculate, the unique signing aspect is implied.

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 opens with 'Use profit_attest when...' providing a clear condition for use. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools (e.g., profit_calculate for unsigned calculations). No exclusions are given, but the condition itself is helpful.

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