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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavioral traits: probabilistic selection, returns a signed inspection record, and states 'Wire format normative; production-grade is Layer B'. However, it omits side effects, permissions, or whether it is read-only, which is a gap but not a contradiction.

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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, the second gives the return type, and the third adds implementation context. The phrase 'Reference-grade implementation' is somewhat redundant, but overall it is efficient and scannable.

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 the tool's complexity (probabilistic logic, signed output) and no output schema, the description should explain more about the returned inspection record and the inspection process. It mentions 'signed inspection record' but not its structure or any side effects. This is adequate but leaves clear gaps for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters (e.g., how sample_rate is used or what records should contain), relying entirely on the schema. No additional semantic value provided beyond the schema.

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 a specific action: 'Probabilistic secondary inspection of a record batch' with a reference code (C20: hive-secondary-inspection). It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'secondary inspection' and returning a signed record, which is unique among the attest_* sibling names.

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 usage context by mentioning 'secondary inspection' and 'record batch', but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like attest_cargo_validate or attest_absence_build. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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