erasure_certificate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose portability, independent verifiability, optional scoping, and the pubkey assertion capability. However, it does not state whether this operation is read-only, what format the certificate takes, what happens on verification failure, or whether any store access occurs besides the optional expected_pubkey check.

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 three sentences and front-loads the most essential property (portable, independently verifiable). The second sentence explains the key usage nuance, and the third adds regulatory context. It is slightly promotional with the GDPR/EU AI Act framing, but that is arguably useful context rather than waste.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify return value shape and side-effect profile. It does not specify what the certificate object contains or how a caller verifies it. The optional parameters are covered, but the absence of any statement about read-only behavior and output format leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke and interpret the result.

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 input schema provides parameter names and defaults, but zero description coverage. The description compensates by explaining both parameters in plain language: request_id optionally scopes the certificate, and expected_pubkey asserts a specific signing key. This gives the agent actionable meaning beyond the bare schema, though formats or constraints are not specified.

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 identifies the tool as producing a portable, independently-verifiable erasure certificate that proves records were erased. It names the artifact and its optional request_id scoping, which distinguishes it from generic audit or recall tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'generates' or 'returns', so the operation is slightly implied rather than stated.

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 gives concrete usage context: the certificate is meant to be handed to a third party and can be verified without the store, and expected_pubkey should be passed to assert a specific signing key. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling verification or audit tools, but it implies a distinct third-party-oriented use case. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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