sign_day_attestation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the attestation includes a tip hash for non-retroactive modification proof. However, it lacks details on side effects, permission requirements, or rate limits. The output schema exists but the description doesn't leverage it to explain behavior.

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 four sentences and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It efficiently conveys restriction, use case, and a key detail. Minor length is acceptable given the tool's complexity.

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 presence of an output schema and no annotation coverage, the description provides a high-level purpose but is incomplete for understanding parameters and full context. It doesn't cover what the output contains beyond the tip hash, or how to interpret the signed attestation.

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 for parameter meanings. It only implicitly refers to 'for a given day' (date_utc) and 'Pro/Enterprise only' (likely tenant-based). It does not explain tenant_id, api_key, email, or their roles, leaving a significant gap.

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 tool emits a signed attestation for log integrity and volume, which is distinct from sibling tools like daily_stats or search. It specifies the resource (attestation for a day) and action (emit signed).

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 provides a clear use case: end-of-day evidence for auditors/Trust Center. It mentions it's Pro/Enterprise only, which helps restrict usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives.

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