list_attestations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only; no side effects' and describes the returned data as a chronological record with actor, timestamp, and status/expiry as recorded, giving clear expectations without contradicting any annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds a concise behavioral note, a usage rationale, and clear alternative pointers. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with no annotations and an output schema present, the description fully covers purpose, return contents, safety profile, and related tools. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 67%, with server_version undocumented. The description adds contextual meaning around assumption_id via 'attestation history' but does not elaborate on parameter syntax or the role of server_version. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers most parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List an assumption's attestation history.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like submit_attestation (record) and get_entity (current fields), and the purpose is immediately obvious.

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 explains when to use this tool ('trace why the assumption is currently attested, expired, or never attested') and explicitly points to alternatives: submit_attestation for recording and get_entity for current fields. It also ties usage to diagnosing attestation-dependent coverage.

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