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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a notable behavior: 'Pins a definition hash for version-anchoring,' and mentions 'Wire format normative,' which is useful. However, it does not describe side effects, idempotency, error conditions, or security requirements. This is a partial disclosure, leaving gaps about what happens on existing IDs or what response to expect.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action. However, the third sentence containing 'Reference-grade implementation' and 'production-grade is Layer B' introduces jargon that may not be actionable or clear to an agent, and 'C17: hive-cargo-taxonomy' is an unexplained reference. While concise, not every sentence earns its place, and the cryptic terminology may distract.

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 tool has 6 parameters including a nested schema, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description should compensate. It explains the core purpose and the hash-pinning mechanism, but lacks information about return values, error handling, usage prerequisites, or the meaning of 'Layer B' and 'C17'. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the operational context of this registration tool.

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 high (83%), so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic context beyond the schema by explaining that the tool 'Pins a definition hash for version-anchoring,' which gives meaning to 'version' and 'schema' parameters. It also frames the cargo type as 'versioned', reinforcing the version parameter's importance. This added meaning slightly exceeds the schema's straightforward descriptions.

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 action: 'Register a versioned cargo type in the HiveAttest registry'. It identifies the resource (cargo type in registry) and the specific verb (register), distinguishing it from sibling tools like attest_cargo_validate or attest_cargo_snapshot. The mention of C17 taxonomy further clarifies its specific domain.

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 implies when to use the tool: when registering a versioned cargo type. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like attest_cargo_validate or attest_cargo_snapshot. The quality caveat ('Reference-grade implementation. Wire format normative; production-grade is Layer B') hints at maturity but not usage context. Thus, guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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