attestation_register

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it explicitly states 'Read-only' and the returned scope. It does not mention ordering, formatting, or error behavior, but for a zero-parameter register read the core behavioral safety is 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the output contract and ends with a terse 'Read-only' note. No wasted words.

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 parameterless read-only register, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know before calling it: what is returned, the grouping dimension, and the side-effect profile. No output schema exists, but the return content is described explicitly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description need not add parameter detail.

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 the precise output of the tool: the latest Art. 5 attestation per prohibited-practice class plus classes never attested. This is specific and differentiates the tool from attestation-writing siblings like record_attestation and attest_retention.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of the many related register/report tools. The only contextual cue is 'Read-only,' which does not help an agent choose among attestation-related siblings.

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