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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the signing algorithm (Ed25519 over RFC 8785 JCS-canonical body), which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it omits side effects, return format, permissions, and whether the manifest is stored or emitted, leaving significant gaps.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The first two sentences are immediately useful, while the final sentence about 'reference-grade' and 'Layer B' is cryptic and adds little practical value. Overall, it remains concise without excessive verbosity.

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?

This tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It explains the signing mechanism but not what the generated manifest contains, how to use the result, or what the caller receives. The lack of usage guidance and behavioral detail makes it inadequate for confident invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on any parameter semantics beyond the schema; it adds no additional context for fields like action_id or ttl_seconds. The 'Pre-Action' framing hints at the context but is too vague to enhance parameter understanding.

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's purpose: to issue a Pre-Action Attestation Manifest (C15: hive-passport). It uses the specific verb 'Issue' and the resource name, distinguishing it from sibling tools like attest_passport_verify. The signing details (Ed25519, JCS-canonical body) further clarify 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that verification is handled by attest_passport_verify or that this is intended for pre-action use. The 'Pre-Action' concept is not explained, leaving invocation context ambiguous.

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