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

Annotations already declare the write, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive profile, but the description adds real mechanics beyond them: the bridge verifies the signature against a registered pubkey and relays to the forge, which tells the agent a registration precondition exists and that the call is mediated rather than direct. It stops short of describing failure behavior, nonce replay protection, or what the forge returns.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and ending with the alternative, with no filler. The alternative-route clause is slightly compressed/telegraphic but still earns its place by naming a genuine escape hatch.

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?

This is a crypto-signed write operation with six required fields, a nested payload, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, so the description should shoulder more. It explains the flow but not the required field formats, the nonce/ts semantics, or what success or verification failure looks like, leaving sizable gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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?

With six required parameters at 0% schema coverage and a nested free-form 'body' object, the description carries the full documentation burden and mostly does not: only 'sig' is implicitly explained via the signature-verification sentence, and 'did', 'repo', 'ts', 'nonce', and the body's expected shape are undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Submit the signed dg1 attestation') and adds what the bridge does with it (verifies signature against registered pubkey, relays to forge). That is far more specific than the bare name, though it never contrasts itself explicitly with the sibling wide_ship_prepare, leaving the prepare-vs-submit split to inference.

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?

It does offer an alternative route ('POST to the forge directly with x-dg-* headers'), which implies this tool is the bridge-mediated path. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over the direct POST, nor what prerequisites exist (registered pubkey, prior prepare step), so the choice is left to the agent.

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