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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the PDF is cryptographically signed, Bitcoin-anchored via OpenTimestamps, archived server-side, and returns permanent links. It also explains how the PDF is accessed (downloadable from URL, never inlined). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured schema.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action and key features (signing, anchoring, archiving). The second sentence clarifies the return behavior (permanent links, downloadable PDF). Every word adds value.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, how to obtain the output, and important security/privacy details (do not send files, compute hash locally). It also mentions the return format (links) and access method (downloadable URL).

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 schema already describes the 'sha256' parameter thoroughly (format, computation methods, warnings). The description adds value by linking the hash to the session context ('attested in this session with attest_hash'), explaining why this specific hash is needed, and reinforcing the privacy aspect (never send file bytes).

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 it generates and archives a certificate PDF for a fingerprint attested in the session via 'attest_hash'. It specifies the cryptographic signing, Bitcoin anchoring, and server-side archiving, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'lookup_certificate' or 'verify_attestation'.

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 implies usage after 'attest_hash' by mentioning 'attested in this session'. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but provides clear context for when the tool applies.

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