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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavior: 'Taint propagates: once tainted, always tainted.' However, it omits side effects, permission requirements, return behavior, and other operational details that would fully inform an agent.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every phrase adds information, including the taint propagation rule and the Layer B reference, with no wasted words.

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 no output schema and a moderately complex operation, the description is reasonably complete: it explains the operation and taint behavior. However, it lacks information about return values, error conditions, and how the chain_id relates to existing custody chains beyond the schema's hint about creating a new chain.

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 100%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds semantic context for taint_status via the taint propagation rule, but does not elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States 'Append a node to a custody chain' with a specific verb and resource, and adds the protocol context 'C16: hive-custody'. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like attest_custody_proof or attest_custody_verify, but the verb 'append' clearly conveys its role.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The phrases 'Reference-grade implementation' and 'production-grade is Layer B' imply a reference/testing context, hinting that this tool may not be for production, but this is not a clear or actionable guideline.

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