get_dora_certificate

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

With no annotations, the description covers important traits: cryptographic signing (HMAC-SHA256), output includes verify_url and optional PDF, signature is binding, certificate expires in 365 days. It doesn't mention side effects like storage or rate limits, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, technical details, and an enumerated parameter list. It is informative without being excessively verbose, though the parameter descriptions could be slightly more 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?

The description covers the output format, expiration, and cryptographic binding. It mentions an output schema exists (though not shown), so return values are presumably documented. It lacks explicit prerequisites like needing prior audit data, but the tool's purpose is clear.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains each of the 6 parameters, including their purpose and format (e.g., findings_csv as comma-separated list, include_pdf_base64 for PDF). This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's bare names and types.

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 generates a cryptographically signed DORA compliance attestation. It specifies the target audience (Pro/Enterprise) and distinguishes from sibling tools like audit or classify, which are clearly 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 explains the output should be shared with auditors/board/procurement team, implying the tool is used after compliance checks. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use or exclude alternatives, leaving room for ambiguity.

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