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

Annotations already disclose this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds that the attestation is content-addressed and represents a verifiable green-compute/energy claim, which gives useful domain context, but it does not say what happens on repeat calls, whether attestations are permanent/append-only, or what authorization is required.

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?

One short sentence with the action front-loaded and only a useful parenthetical appended. Every element earns its place and there is no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a non-idempotent write that creates a verifiable claim, the description omits key context: prerequisite entry existence, repeat-call behavior, and persistence of the issued attestation.

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 single parameter entry_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. Saying the attestation is "for a ledger entry" does imply entry_id identifies an existing ledger entry, but it adds no format, lookup, or constraint details beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb ("Issue") and resource ("content-addressed attestation for a ledger entry"), and the parenthetical clarifies what an attestation represents. It implicitly contrasts with the verify_attestation sibling by saying "issue" rather than "check," but never names that sibling or any other alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus verify_attestation, carbon_receipt, or record_work, and no preconditions such as whether the ledger entry must already exist. Usage is only inferable from the phrase "for a ledger entry."

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