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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool checks against injection patterns and NatATL bounds and is context-aware to prevent false positives, but it omits critical behavioral details: whether the operation is read-only, what it returns (e.g., a pass/fail verdict or risk score), and whether it has side effects.

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 and front-loads the key purpose with a tag. It is efficient, though the bracketed tag is somewhat cryptic and could be clearer.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should more fully explain the tool's behavior, especially its return values and any permission or side-effect considerations. It covers the what but not the how or the result, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.

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 already documents all five parameters. The description adds only marginal meaning (e.g., 'context-aware' aligns with the mode parameter) but does not elaborate on parameter formats or interactions beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb 'Certify' and the resources it evaluates (proposed action, bash command, SQL statement, text plan) against safety boundaries and injection patterns. It is distinguishable from all listed siblings, none of which perform safety verification of arbitrary proposals.

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 usage as a safety gate but does not explicitly state when to call it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context-awareness note hints at differentiating planning vs. execution, but no direct 'use when' guidance is given.

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