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

With no annotations, the description provides important behavioral info: the trust model (only reachable by fingerprint knower), and a constraint (never send file bytes). It does not discuss rate limits or side effects, but as a read-only lookup, this is sufficient.

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 extremely concise: three sentences and a trust model note. It front-loads the purpose, then adds practical guidance, with no unnecessary words.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete (input, output type, trust model). It does not detail the exact output structure, but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the availability of the links.

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 covers the SHA-256 parameter well (100% coverage). The description adds value by reinforcing the privacy/security aspect and instructing not to upload files, which goes beyond the schema's technical description.

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 looks up whether a SHA-256 fingerprint has an attestation certificate and provides specific links. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'attest_hash' (which creates) and 'verify_attestation' (which verifies) by focusing on retrieval of existing certificates.

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 says when to use (to check for a certificate) and includes guidance on computing the hash and not sending files. It lacks explicit advice on when not to use or direct comparisons to sibling tools, but the context is clear.

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