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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses important behaviors: cryptographic signing, on-chain anchoring on Polygon, and external verifiability via JWKS. It does not mention operational side effects like transaction costs, required wallet keys, or irreversibility, which would be valuable for a mutation tool.

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 two focused sentences, front-loading the primary action and supporting with verification details. No redundant or filler content.

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 is complex (on-chain signed alert), yet there is no output schema and the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., transaction hash, signed payload). It hints at external verification but leaves the agent uncertain about response format and prerequisites, making it incomplete for a production 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, only referencing the underlying trust layer functions without connecting them to the fields.

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 'Issue a cryptographically signed, on-chain anchored integrity alert for a Polymarket market,' which is a specific verb+resource+outcome. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pg_verify_alert (which verifies) by emphasizing issuance of a signed alert.

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 a workflow by mentioning alerts 'are externally verifiable via pg_verify_alert', suggesting usage for creating alerts that will later be verified. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like pg_insider_signal_scan or provide exclusion conditions, so it only gives clear context without full guidance.

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