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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the signed nature of the attestation and the per-call cost, which is useful. Still, it doesn't describe side effects, authentication requirements, return format, or what the caller actually receives beyond 'signed attestation'.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core definition, followed by a brief use-case explanation and a cost note. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundant filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential concept and a usage trigger, but it leaves gaps around what the task text should contain and what the returned signed attestation looks like. It is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add meaningful guidance about how to compose the 'task' parameter, and the schema's 'Task/query text for this SKU' is itself vague. The connection between 'task' and the described process-attestation behavior is only implicit.

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 that this tool produces a 'Signed attestation that a specific process was followed' and contrasts it with outcome-only attestations. It conveys the core purpose well, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from closely related sibling tools such as security.audit-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 gives a clear usage context: use it when a counterparty needs evidence of how something was done, not merely that it was done. However, it doesn't name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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