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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds material behavior: the artifact is static and permanently expired and matches the signed schema, which tells the agent the data is a non-live fixture rather than a valid credential.

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?

A single dense sentence with the key qualifier (static, permanently expired, sample:true) front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary. For a zero-parameter fixture, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, how it relates to the signed attestation, and why it exists.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the tool is a parameterless fetch of a fixed artifact.

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 precisely what the tool returns: a static, permanently expired sample of the signed Risk Attestation, marked sample:true, carrying the same fields and EIP-712 schema as the real one. An agent can instantly distinguish this fixture from the signed attestation and from verification siblings like attestation.verify.

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 clearly names the intended use case: building and testing parsers and verifiers. It does not explicitly state the exclusion (do not treat this as a valid attestation for production verification), though 'permanently expired' strongly implies it.

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