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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation via 'Record' but does not mention side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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 extremely short (two brief sentences), which initially seems concise. However, the brevity results in under-specification for a tool with five parameters, making it inadequate rather than efficiently structured.

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 five parameters with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description provides almost no contextual information about return values, prerequisites, or edge cases. It is far from complete for such a parameter-rich tool.

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 description adds meaning for the 'add' parameter by instructing to set it to true, but the remaining four parameters (date, role, policy_id, attested_by) are entirely unexplained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to sufficiently compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 action with a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('policy attestation'), so the core purpose is understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like policy_gap_check or compliance_score, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only gives an instruction to 'Set add=true', with no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions.

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