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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns a signed attestation, includes a timestamp, covers all components, and verifies privacy invariants. It also explains how to verify the signature (recover signer over digest). This covers the core behavioral contract, though it doesn't detail failure modes or edge cases like what happens if invariants don't hold.

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?

Description is well-structured and reasonably concise. It front-loads the main purpose (returns signed attestation), then adds details on what it covers and how to verify. Every sentence adds value, though it could be tightened slightly. Overall efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return value. It does this thoroughly: describes the attestation content (liveness + privacy invariants), mentions signature, and instructs verification. Also gives the intended use case. This is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect and how to use it.

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?

Zero parameters, so no parameter documentation needed. The description doesn't need to add parameter info. Baseline 4 is appropriate since there's nothing to document beyond what the schema shows (empty object).

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?

Clearly states the tool returns a relayer-signed attestation proving liveness and privacy invariants. It specifies the exact components covered and the cryptographic verification methodable. While it distinguishes from many siblings by being an attestation, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar status/check tools like robyn_route_status, but the description is specific and actionable.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to programmatically decide whether to trust this router before routing value through it.' This is clear use-case guidance)Skip, though it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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