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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, and the description adds context about signing, expiration, and that it never certifies vulnerability-free. This adds value beyond the annotations, though it could elaborate more on idempotency key usage.

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 extremely concise—just two sentences—and front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence serves a clear function: stating the action and adding constraints.

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 does not explain return values, error conditions, or details of idempotency and TTL. For a tool with 12 parameters (11 required), the description is too sparse to ensure correct invocation.

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 but only explains a few parameters (coverage, scanner, result counts, evidence digest, claim boundary). Many required parameters (auth, posture, ttl_days, evidence_url, etc.) are left undocumented, making it hard for the agent to provide correct values.

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: publishing signed, expiring security-coverage evidence. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like attest_settlement or import_security_receipt by specifying the exact nature of the evidence and the requirement of a signed market profile.

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 notes a prerequisite ('attester must already have a signed market profile') and mentions what the statement includes. It does not explicitly list when not to use or compare to siblings, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate.

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