attest_documentation_retention

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: appending a signed statement, the ten-year retention window, the required presence of technical documentation and the declaration, the handling of notified-body items as present/not-applicable, and the gap recording for a missing quality management system. It does not state whether the operation is reversible or whether it requires special permissions, but the disclosed constraints are substantial.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and then packs the constraints. It is not overly long, but the list of document kinds and the conditional rules make it slightly heavy. Every clause earns its place; a small structural improvement would be splitting the document-kind enumeration from the presence rules.

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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential semantics: what is appended, which documents are involved, and the validation rules. It does not describe the return value or error conditions, but for a record-append tool the input semantics are the critical part. The main gap is the lack of any mention of what the tool returns or how failures are signaled.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the `documents` list structure ({kind, sha256 or ref, present, not_applicable_reason}), enumerates the allowed kinds, and clarifies the `declaration_seq` link. It also gives meaning to `placed_on_market_ts` as the start of the retention period. `actor` and `note` are not explained, but the core parameters are well covered.

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 states a specific verb ('Append a signed statement'), a precise resource (Art. 18(1) documents at the authorities' disposal for ten years), and the exact condition (after `placed_on_market_ts`). It also enumerates the document kinds, which distinguishes it from siblings like `attest_retention` and `record_attestation`.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when attesting that Art. 18(1) documents are retained and available. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity of the document kinds and the retention condition provides enough context to route an agent correctly. A small gap is the lack of an explicit 'use X instead' statement.

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