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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses the key behaviors: prepare uses a signed GET and returns the head, submit uses a signed POST and submits the statement, and closing starts record issuance. It does not cover reversibility, error conditions, or rate limits, but it conveys the critical side effects and mode distinction.

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?

Two dense sentences contain the action, endpoint, side effect, and both mode workflows; there is no filler. The verb/resource is front-loaded, and 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?

For a five-parameter tool with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the definition is not fully self-contained: it relies on SPEC §7.4/§12 for statement/signature construction and does not describe submit responses or errors. Still, the mode workflow and endpoint give an agent enough to make a reasonable first 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 coverage is only 40%, and the description adds useful meaning by mapping mode to HTTP verb/behavior and describing auth as a signed GET/POST. However, it does not clarify the relationship between auth, signature, and statement, nor how the prepare output feeds headSeq/headHash, leaving important parameter semantics to the external SPEC.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Close your own active attestation' — and identifies the exact endpoint. It names the side effect (starts record issuance) and mentions close_session, but it does not explicitly contrast close_attestation with its close_session sibling, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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?

It gives clear operational context: only your own active attestation, and it spells out the two-mode workflow (prepare returns the current head; submit sends the signed CloseStatement). It does not state when to prefer close_attestation over close_session or list exclusions, but the resource scoping makes the primary use case clear.

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