sign_cra_attestation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the cryptographic method (HMAC-SHA256), the output (signed JSON + verify URL + optional PDF), and expiration (365 days). It does not mention error handling or required permissions, but overall provides adequate transparency.

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 concise, with a lead sentence summarizing purpose and bullet points for parameters. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the bullet format is acceptable.

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?

The description covers the output format and key parameter details but misses explanations for two required parameters and api_key. With an output schema existing, the missing parameter info reduces completeness.

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 description explains three parameters (findings_csv, requirements_audited_csv, include_pdf_base64) but leaves entity_name, overall_score, and api_key undocumented. Given 0% schema coverage, this is 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 it generates a signed CRA compliance attestation, specifying the verb 'generate' and the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_annex_i or classify_product, which have different functions.

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 context on when to use the tool (for generating signed attestations) and explains the output format and expiration. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among siblings.

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