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

Annotations already cover idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond by disclosing a $0.50 per-call cost, the compliance frameworks (EU AI Act Art. 14, KYA-OS, IETF AID), and the return format (Ed25519 envelope). These are genuinely useful behavioral disclosures not present in structured fields. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three terse sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The compliance sentence adds context but is somewhat niche for agent selection; still, it earns its place by signaling regulatory relevance. No redundant phrasing or 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?

The output schema covers the return value (Ed25519 envelope), so the description need not explain it. Cost, compliance, and signature algorithm are all present. The main gap is missing when-to-use guidance relative to the verification siblings, but for a self-contained issuance tool with full param coverage, it is otherwise complete.

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% and both parameters are already well-described in the schema (agent_did recipient, capabilities optional strings recorded on the attestation). The description only echoes 'optional capabilities' and adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clear verb (Issue) + resource (signed trust attestation) + target (agent DID and optional capabilities), with a specific signature algorithm (Ed25519). It implicitly differentiates from the verification siblings (verify_agent_attestation, verify_agent_trust, verify_agent_reputation) since this is the creation counterpart. An agent can tell what this tool is for immediately.

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?

Usage constext is implied by the verb 'issue' — the agent must create a signed attestation. However, no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance is given, no exclusions are stated, and the distinction from verification tools is left to inference. The compliance and cost details hint at context but do not route the agent explicitly.

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