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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool does not perform the audit, only attests that it was performed and findings match claims, which is a valuable behavioral disclosure. It also transparently mentions the cost per call ($0.50 USDC), adding context an agent would otherwise lack. However, it does not mention authentication, idempotency, or error behavior, but these are less critical for an attestation service.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose, followed by a parenthetical cost note. It is concise with no wasted words, though the cost information could be seen as extra but is useful for decision-making.

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 the lack of output schema, the description should explain what the agent receives back. It mentions 'the credential a checkpoint can trust' but does not specify the format, content, or any requirements for calling the tool. The parameter is vague, and there is no mention of prerequisites or error conditions, leaving some gaps for an agent to fully understand the call.

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 description coverage is 100% – the single parameter 'task' is described as 'Task/query text for this SKU'. The tool description does not add any further meaning about what 'task' should contain, leaving the schema's vague description as the only guidance. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the parameter, but no extra elaboration is provided.

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's function: neutral third-party notarization of an AI audit result, explicitly disclaiming that the tool itself runs the audit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like security.process-attestation or security.enterprise-audit by its unique role as an independent attestation service.

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 when a checkpoint needs to trust an audit result without re-running it, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No sibling differentiation is given, so an agent must infer when to choose this over other security tools.

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