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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the bundle's contents (hash-chained provenance, intent bindings, PQC attestations), the key property of independent verifiability without Kevros access, and the per-call cost of $0.05. This is significant extra behavioral and operational info.

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 four short, front-loaded sentences. Each sentence adds unique information: what is generated, what it contains, a key property (independently verifiable), and cost. There is no fluff or repetition; it is 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?

Given there is an output schema and well-documented parameters, the description does not need to explain return values or parameter details. It covers the core purpose, contents, verifiability context, and cost, making the tool complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it. The complexity is moderate, but the description plus schema/annotations fully cover the needed context.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description does not add extra syntax, formatting, or parameter-specific guidance beyond what is in the schema; it only references the contents generally, which maps to the boolean includes. Hence baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Generate a certifier-grade compliance evidence bundle') and clearly distinguishes from sibling verify/attest tools by emphasizing bundle generation and independent verifiability. It also lists key components (hash-chained provenance, intent bindings, PQC attestations), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 context: this tool produces a compliance bundle for certifier-grade evidence, independently verifiable without Kevros access, at a known cost. It implies usage when an external verifiable bundle is needed, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it relative to siblings like verify or attest.

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