sign_classification_cert

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds minimal behavioral insight beyond the tool name, only noting the signing algorithm and edition. It fails to disclose side effects, authorization requirements, or idempotency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and direct, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

Despite the existence of an output schema, the description leaves many gaps: parameter meanings, prerequisites, usage context, and behavioral details. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand and correctly invoke the tool.

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% (no descriptions), and the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters (e.g., entity_name, annex_i_score). The agent has no semantic understanding of what each parameter represents from the description alone.

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 verb 'Generate' and the specific resource 'CRA classification certificate', including the signing algorithm (HMAC-SHA256) and edition (Pro/Enterprise). This differentiates it from sibling tools like classify_product and generate_doc_template.

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 is provided on when to use this tool over siblings or in what context. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage.

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