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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it does not retain payloads or raw identifiers, is deterministic, evidence-bounded, and signed, and includes a cost (0.003 USDC). This goes beyond annotations and helps an agent understand side effects and guarantees.

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 no waste. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the cost and key properties. Every clause 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?

Given the open schema, no required parameters, and rich annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the behavioral commitment, privacy properties, cost, and signing. It doesn't describe the output schema, but an output schema exists, so that's not required. A small gap is the lack of explicit guidance on what inputs are needed, but the open schema makes that less critical.

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 is open (additionalProperties: true, minProperties: 1) with no named parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100% but provides no semantic detail. The description compensates by explaining the purpose and constraints (privacy-minimized, no raw identifiers, deterministic, evidence-bounded, signed), which gives an agent enough context to know what kind of input is expected. However, it doesn't specify exact required fields, so a 4 is appropriate rather than 5.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and a clear resource ('a privacy-minimized behavioral commitment'), and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing privacy-minimization and evidence-boundedness. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the phrase 'without retaining payloads or raw identifiers' clarifies its unique scope among the many evidence/receipt tools.

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 when to use it: when a privacy-minimized, deterministic, signed behavioral commitment is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., agent_reputation_evidence, attest) suggests a niche. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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