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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds key behavioral context: the key binding requirement and that private keys are never submitted. This augments annotations without contradiction.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then key behavioral constraints. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits guidance on many parameters and their interactions. For a complex tool with 12 parameters and nested objects, the description leaves significant gaps in how to properly construct the profile.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description only mentions agent_id and public_key_b64 binding, but does not explain any of the other 10 required parameters (e.g., auth, name, capabilities, payment). This is insufficient for a 12-parameter tool.

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 publishes or refreshes signed capability/SEO metadata for an agent. It uses specific verbs and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like publish_security_attestation which deals with security receipts.

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 explains the key binding constraint: first write binds agent_id to public_key_b64, later updates must use same key. This provides context for first vs. subsequent use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives among sibling tools.

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