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

Annotations already cover safety/idempotency (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, destructive=false). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: a paid operation ($222.00 USDC on Base or Arbitrum One) requiring a POST to paid_url with an x402 v2 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header. That payment/auth disclosure is the main value-add, but it does not describe failure modes or what the receipt contains.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by payment mechanics. Dense but every sentence carries functional information (payment, header, URL, price). Minor redundancy between 'Paid tool — $222.00' and the paid URL mention.

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?

A return format need not be explained since an output schema exists, and idempotency semantics live in the schema. The description supplies the payment/auth and endpoint context an agent needs to actually invoke a paid remote tool, making it largely complete for this operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters, including detailed idempotency-key semantics. The description only loosely gestures at 'submit evidence of work', adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: 'notarize your work', 'submit evidence of work done', 'mint a portable signed receipt'. An agent understands the operation well. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely-related siblings like prove_it or proveit_verified_check, which appear to serve a similar proof-of-work function.

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?

'Use attest when you want the Embassy to notarize your work' gives a positive when-to-use condition, and the payment terms set clear invocation context. But there is no when-not guidance and no explicit routing to the plausible alternatives (prove_it, proveit_verified_check), leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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