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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses that the tool does not produce or verify signatures and that it returns a non-success withdrawal notice. The withdrawal date is also given, providing complete transparency about its status.

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The description is two sentences with the critical 'WITHDRAWN' flag front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning: the status, the non-functionality, the behavior, and a warning. No fluff or repetition.

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For a deprecated tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives all essential context: it is withdrawn, does not perform its named function, and returns a non-success notice. An agent immediately knows to avoid invoking it. Nothing further is needed.

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 provides 100% coverage of both parameters (symbol with enum, fact_type with default and description). The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but since the tool is withdrawn and returns a standard notice regardless of arguments, the schema is sufficient. 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?

The description explicitly states the tool is 'WITHDRAWN' and clarifies that it 'does not produce or verify a cryptographic signature,' directly contradicting the name's implication. It also specifies the actual behavior: 'returns a non-success withdrawal notice.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like verify_signature and evidence_anchor.

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 an explicit when-not instruction: 'Do not rely on it for signed evidence.' This unequivocally tells the agent this tool should not be used for its original purpose, which is sufficient guidance for a deprecated tool.

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