Anchor audit log in SCITT

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds valuable fallback context (statements returned unsigned when no submitter is configured), but it does not address the non-idempotent hint — i.e. that repeat submissions anchor duplicate statements — nor what a configured submission returns.

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, front-loaded with the core action and then the conditional fallback. No filler, no restatement of the title or schema.

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?

Complete for a tool whose annotations carry the safety profile and whose schema fully documents all parameters, including the nested range object. The one open question, the return payload when a service is configured, is minor and partly implied by the out-of-band description.

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 all four parameters including the nested sequence window are documented in the schema itself. The description only loosely gestures at 'a range of audit entries' and adds no syntax, defaults, or sequencing semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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+resource: building COSE_Sign1 statements for a range of audit entries and submitting them to the SCITT transparency service. This clearly separates it from sibling audit tools (audit.read, audit.verify_receipt, audit.verify_chain) by function, though it never names an alternative to disambiguate the choice explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: use it to anchor entries, with a stated fallback (out-of-band return) when no SCITT service is configured. However, it never says when an agent should choose this over chap.audit.verify_chain or verify_receipt, nor any prerequisites for anchoring.

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