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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds valuable context that the attestation is 'a submitted opinion, not independently verified evidence,' which sets expectations about data authority. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether creation is idempotent, whether records are immutable, or whether visibility defaults to private—leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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?

Two sentences, tightly packed with essential information. The primary action and key fields are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds important interpretive context without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 create operation with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and core semantics. However, it omits practical context such as the role of idempotencyKey, any behavioral guarantees (e.g., permanent record), and routing guidance against revise_attestation, leaving the agent to infer some call details from the schema alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for the verdict parameter (explicitly '-1/0/+1') and names evidence and sponsorship, which map to evidenceIds and sponsored/financialRelationship. Yet it does not explain the critical idempotencyKey parameter or clarify context, reason, visibility, or interactionId, leaving important semantics undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Attest') with a clear resource ('an interaction') and names the key payload components (evidence, -1/0/+1 verdict, sponsorship disclosures). This differentiates it from siblings like create_interaction and revise_attestation by indicating it creates an attestation record rather than an interaction or a revision.

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 tool's use case is implied: you call it when you want to record an attestation about an interaction. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over revise_attestation or submit_evidence, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites, so the agent must infer the selection criteria.

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