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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them. It discloses irreversibility, outward-facing permanent signatures, revocation semantics, RED classification, human authorization staging, and the fact that refusals are permanent outcomes rather than transient transport errors. No contradiction with annotations.

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 long but every sentence carries operational weight, arranged logically from definition to provenance boundary, irreversibility, classification, precondition, refusal semantics, authorization, and tier. The critical call guidance is front-loaded, and the dense formatting is justified for such a high-stakes, irreversible action.

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?

For a destructive single-parameter operation with an output schema already present, the description covers every practical concern: prerequisites, side effects, failure modes, permission model, political/governance routing, and the exact verify URL format. An agent has enough information to propose this action correctly and to interpret refusals without consulting external documentation.

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?

There is only one parameter, report_id, and the schema description already covers its provenance and author constraint with 100% coverage, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description restates the 'caller's OWN reports' requirement but adds no new formatting, value semantics, or parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already 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?

The description opens with a specific action ('Request a Valuein compliance certificate') on a specific resource ('one of the caller's OWN reports') and immediately clarifies what the certificate attests and what it does not. This meaningfully distinguishes the tool from publishing, verification, and figure-review siblings without merely restating the title.

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 gives explicit preconditions: every figure must already be reviewed via save_figure_review, and the agent should check list_figure_reviews first. It also states author-only eligibility, tier restrictions, the governed-client staging instruction, and a firm 'do not retry a refusal unchanged' rule with each refusal code mapped to its corrective action.

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