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

Far exceeds the annotations: it discloses irreversibility ('no undo' even though revocation is loud), outward-facing public URL exposure, RED classification/staged human authorization, tier requirement, and that refusals are permanent outcomes with named fix codes. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads purpose and blast radius before preconditions and refusal semantics, with zero filler given the tool's complexity. It is dense and long, but each block (scope, irreversibility, precondition, refusal codes, tier) carries distinct actionable information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description covers safety profile, authorization model, prerequisites, refusal taxonomy, and eligibility tier — everything an agent needs to invoke and handle results correctly.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already documents report_id and its authoring constraint. The description restates 'the caller's OWN reports' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Request a Valuein compliance certificate for one of the caller's OWN reports') and precisely defines the attestation scope (provenance/absence of lookahead bias) and its limits. This clearly distinguishes it from verify_report_figures, verify_facts, and publish_report siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when the tool applies, the precondition ('every figure... must already be reviewed via save_figure_review — check with list_figure_reviews first'), the author-only restriction, and the governance path ('Propose it; do not claim to have certified anything yourself'). It routes the agent to the correct preparatory tools.

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