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

Annotations only indicate non-readOnly and openWorld hint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the operation costs $0.010 USDC, produces on-chain proof URLs, and includes a free re-verify URL. It also discloses the dual-chain anchoring, which implies permanent on-chain record creation.

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 two sentences that efficiently pack the core action, two signing modes, return values, and price. Every phrase carries information, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and outcomes: what is attested, how to sign, what is returned, and the cost. It omits some edge-case details like required signer_pubkey for ed25519, but the schema covers that. Overall, sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema descriptions cover all parameters completely, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the three hashes and the signature omission behavior, but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the tool's purpose: attesting a decision over (input_hash, output_hash, decision) with optional self-signing or treasury signing, followed by dual-chain anchoring. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'anchor_hash' by focusing on decisions and explicit signing options.

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 provides clear operational guidance: sign it yourself or omit the signature for treasury signing, and explains the return values and cost. However, it does not explicitly reference alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.

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