erasure_certificate

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses portability, third-party verifiability, optional scoping, default signing key behavior, and binding to self_check, but it does not say whether any state is mutated, what side effects occur, or what errors/permissions are involved.

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 key facts are front-loaded, but the text is padded with marketing-style emphasis ('auditor-grade', 'INDEPENDENTLY-VERIFIABLE', 'GDPR Art.17 / EU AI Act Art.12') and some redundancy between 'independently verifiable' and 'check it WITHOUT your store'.

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 certificate-generation tool with no output schema, it explains purpose and the two parameters reasonably. Missing are the return format of the certificate, how the third party consumes it, and the relationship to sibling erasure report/audit tools.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description is responsible for explaining parameters. It explains request_id as optional scoping and expected_pubkey as asserting a signing key with a default of INSPEXIMUS_RECEIPT_PUBKEY, which is meaningful though slightly cryptic.

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 identifies a specific deliverable — an independently verifiable erasure certificate proving records erased, optionally scoped by request_id. It conveys the tool's role as a proof/receipt object, though it doesn't explicitly compare against erasure_report or erasure_audit.

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?

It gives a clear intended scenario: hand the certificate to a third party who can verify without your store. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over sibling report/audit tools, and no exclusions are given.

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