sign_data_provenance_attestation

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

With no annotations, the description partially explains behavior: it produces HMAC-SHA256 signed JSON, a public verify URL, and optional PDF. It mentions offline validation but does not disclose auth requirements (api_key), mutation semantics, or error handling. Key parameters like entity_name and stack_description are not described.

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 clear overview sentence and bullet points for key parameters. It is front-loaded with purpose, but the bullets could be more consistently structured. No wasted sentences.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output structure, the required input parameters (entity_name, stack_description, api_key), or the prerequisite step (check_data_provenance). Adequate for basic understanding but lacks detail.

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 adds meaning for 3 out of 6 parameters (open_licence_score, findings_csv, include_pdf_base64) by explaining their source and format. However, it omits semantics for entity_name, stack_description, and api_key, and schema coverage is 50% (3 of 6 parameters mentioned).

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 data-provenance attestation, specifying the verb 'Generate', the resource 'attestation', and the context 'geospatial stack'. It distinguishes from siblings like check_data_provenance and list_data_sources by focusing on signing, not checking or listing.

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 explicitly mentions use cases such as CSRD E3/E4 evidence packs, GDPR Article 30 records, and municipal mandates, indicating when to use. It also hints at external validation by auditors, but does not directly contrast with siblings or state when not to use this tool.

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