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

With no annotations, the description conveys that it verifies multiple attestation aspects and that every response includes a signed C18-format receipt. It also notes this is reference-grade with normative wire format. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or failure behavior beyond the decision outcome, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 purpose. The 'THE HEADLINE TOOL' flourish and the Layer B reference add slight noise but do not detract significantly. Every sentence contributes core information about scope and response format.

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 5 params, nested objects, and no output schema, but the description explains the high-level decision logic and receipt behavior. It does not clarify how optional params affect verification (e.g., if cargo_manifest omitted, is cargo check skipped) or return value structure beyond the receipt. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a bit more detail would be useful.

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%, so parameters are already well-described. The description loosely maps to parameters (passport_manifest, cargo_manifest, warranty_ids) but does not add detailed syntax or cross-references beyond what the schema provides. 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 clearly states the tool evaluates whether an agent may proceed through the HiveAttest gate, listing specific checks (passport signature+expiry, cargo registry membership, warranty status). It distinguishes itself from sibling attestation tools by being the 'headline' gate decision tool, not just a single attestation verifier.

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 this is the gate evaluation tool when a gate decision is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over individual sibling tools like attest_passport_verify or attest_cargo_validate. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so 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.