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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the operation seals a SHA-256 hash on the Privi blockchain (explaining the non-read-only nature) and requires an organization API key. It does not address repeat-call behavior or failure modes when the org is not onboarded.

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 carries the purpose, audience, output format, sealing behavior, and auth requirement with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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, no parameters, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining essentials: what is exported, in what format, for whom, and the auth and write side-effect. It stops short of describing response structure or prerequisites (e.g., needing a completed plan), but is nearly complete for a zero-argument export.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 (export) and a well-defined resource (cryptographic inventory/CBOM plus migration plan), along with the output format and the blockchain sealing step. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as gov_pqc_verify_export or gov_pqc_inventory, though the CBOM framing separates it from gov_ai_inventory_export.

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 audience ('for OMB, the CIO or auditors') implies a compliance-reporting use case, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing versus alternatives like gov_pqc_verify_export or ledger_report_pdf, so selection is left to inference.

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