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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the result is Ed25519-signed, offline-verifiable, based on observed conditions, and includes pricing/tier information. It does not mention error behaviors or what happens when both inputs are provided, but offers substantial behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and remains dense with useful details. The parenthetical pricing/tier info is slightly extraneous, but every other sentence contributes to how the agent should use and interpret the tool.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the specific flag categories and explaining the signed, verifiable nature of the result. It stops short of describing the exact response shape or potential error states, but provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 adds value by explaining the two parameters can be supplied together or alone ('endpoint URL and/or the agent's record'), which clarifies the optionality implied by zero required parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the signed security posture of an agent' and enumerates the exact security flags delivered. It distinguishes itself from verification tools like onyx_attestation_verify by noting the output is signed and can be verified separately.

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 clearly says to pass an endpoint URL and/or the agent's record, and clarifies the output should be interpreted as facts rather than judgments. It also points to onyx_attestation_verify for verification, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool vs. siblings like onyx_agent_verify.

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