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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds value by disclosing that the response explicitly states this is counterparty attestation (not independent verification) and that earnings require both parties to attest matching terms. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not cover error behavior or failure modes.

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 three sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then adds necessary context in the following two. Every sentence adds value, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral constraint (dual attestation). However, given 9 required parameters with zero schema documentation, the description is incomplete—it fails to explain parameter meanings, prerequisites, or error cases. The existence of an output schema partially mitigates the lack of return-value explanation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining key parameters. It does not: the 9 required parameters (e.g., agent_id, work_id, rail, amount_minor) are left entirely to their names and types. The description offers no parameter guidance, forcing the agent to infer meaning from parameter names alone.

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: 'Attest a settlement receipt as buyer or seller.' It uses a specific verb ('Attest') and resource ('settlement receipt'), and further clarifies the contextual requirement that earnings depend on both counterparties attesting identical terms. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like import_security_receipt or publish_security_attestation.

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 good usage guidance by explaining the two-party attestation process and explicitly contrasting it with 'independent chain/payment-processor verification.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative tools for related tasks, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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