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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions a cost ('0.004 USDC'), which is useful, but does not state whether signing is irreversible, what permissions/identity are required, latency/rate behavior, or what 'bounded samples' constrains. Output schema exists, so return format needn't be described, but safety and irreversibility are missing.

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?

A single tight sentence with no waste, and the cost is front-loaded in a parenthetical. It is appropriately sized, though it could be slightly more front-loaded on the core action.

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 signing/attestation tool with no annotations and a required-samples+policy contract, the description is too thin. It omits prerequisites, irreversibility, identity requirements, and any routing rationale, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 parameters samples and policy are already documented in the schema and baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint meaning 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?

States a specific verb (sign) and resource (availability/latency calculations), distinguishing it from generic siblings like 'attest' or 'verify'. However, the scope is vague: 'bounded samples' and 'sla attestation' aren't fully explained, and an agent can't easily tell why this differs from 'attest' without opening the schema.

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?

No when-to-use guidance. It does not explain when an agent should choose service_sla_attestation over attest, verify, or try_service, nor what prerequisite state (samples, policy) must exist first.

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