sign_handoff_chain_attestation

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'signed attestation' implying a write/mutation, but doesn't clarify side effects, required permissions (e.g., api_key/email usage), or whether it's destructive. With no annotations, the description is insufficient.

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?

While very short (one sentence), it sacrifices informativeness. It lacks structure (no sections, examples, or parameter details) and is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description should compensate but fails. Output schema exists but is not described. The tool's purpose and usage context remain unclear for an AI agent to correctly invoke.

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?

Input schema has 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no information about any parameter meanings, formats, or purposes, forcing the agent to rely solely on parameter names, which are ambiguous (e.g., window_start_utc format not specified).

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 handoff chain integrity over a window, distinguishing it from siblings like accept_handoff or verify_chain. However, the verb 'emit' is somewhat abstract and 'Pro+' is ambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools should be preferred.

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