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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return composition (hash plus signed attestation), which hints that signing occurs, but never states that signing requires a key/credential, whether the operation is deterministic, or whether it has side effects. Auth prerequisites and rate limits are entirely absent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, standard, and output are all packed into one clause.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return values (hash + EIP-712 attestation), which is the right compensation. However, for a tool that apparently signs data, the absence of any usage routing against four siblings and no auth/permission context leaves meaningful gaps.

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 50%: 'payload' is documented but 'algorithm' has an enum and default with no description. The description names SHA-256, implicitly tying to the default algorithm, but never explains the sha512 alternative or that the algorithm selection changes the emitted hash. Baseline 3 given partial schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (canonicalize), the resource (JSON), the governing standard (RFC 8785), and the return shape (SHA-256 hash + EIP-712 attestation). This is clear enough to distinguish it from verify_attestation or structure_extraction, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling batch_canonicalize.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus batch_canonicalize, verify_attestation, or create_receipt. An agent must infer that single-payload canonicalization is the right choice only from the tool name.

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