sign_conformity_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the return shape ({signed, signature, sealed_at, cert_id}), which signals a sealing/attestation operation. It does not state permission or auth requirements, whether signing is idempotent or irreversible, or what happens on failure.

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?

Roughly three lines, front-loaded with the core action, then structured Args/Returns blocks. Every line carries information; no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies both the input provenance and the return keys, which covers the essentials. It leaves out auth requirements and failure/verification behavior, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter is an opaque nested object with additionalProperties=true, so the schema provides essentially no semantics. The description compensates by naming the exact source of the value (audit_server_json output), which is the key ambiguity an agent faces.

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?

States a specific verb and cryptographic mechanism ('HMAC-sign') plus the resource ('conformity report') and the business goal ('so authors can publish it as evidence'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like check_required_fields or list_spec_versions, though it never explicitly says so.

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?

Implies the workflow by stating the parameter is the 'Output of audit_server_json()', which tells the agent to run the audit first. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use conditions, no prerequisites (e.g., a report must pass checks before signing), and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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