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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the service binds the fingerprint to a timestamp, signs with HMAC, and normalizes metadata which become immutable after issuance. It explicitly states metadata are self-declared and do not prove authorship. It also clarifies the server never receives files, addressing potential misuse.

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 efficiently structured, starting with the core action and then layering details: authentication, metadata behavior, hash computation instructions, and fallback options. Every sentence contributes essential context without redundancy, making it concise yet comprehensive.

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 no output schema and eight parameters, the description addresses all key aspects: purpose, prerequisites, input preparation, security constraints, and alternative workflows. It leaves no significant gaps for an AI agent to misinterpret, ensuring thorough guidance for correct invocation.

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 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining which parameters are 'bound by the signature' (immutable) versus 'descriptive only'. For the 'sha256' parameter, it provides concrete computation commands and a warning against sending files. This enriches the schema, moving it above baseline.

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 'Attest a work' with a clear verb and resource. It specifies binding a SHA-256 fingerprint to a timestamp and signing it. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'authorize' (authentication) or 'create_certificate_pdf' (output generation), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states the requirement for a credential (device flow via 'authorize' or API key). It instructs users to compute the SHA-256 locally and NEVER send file bytes, with specific shell commands. It also provides fallback options (website, Telegram bot) when hash computation is not possible, offering clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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