List Attestations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only; no side effects' and describes the chronological return of events with actor, timestamp, and status/expiry. This is strong transparency beyond what the schema shows, though it does not mention potential limits or pagination.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the core action appears in the first sentence, followed by return-value context, a practical diagnostic purpose, and clear alternatives. Every sentence contributes information an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The tool has an output schema and only three self-explanatory parameters, so the description need not expand return types. It explains what the returned history contains, why the tool matters for coverage diagnosis, and how it relates to neighboring tools. This is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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%, leaving server_version undocumented, but the parameter name is self-explanatory. The description clarifies the role of assumption_id by explaining that it identifies the assumption whose history is returned. It does not add detail about model_id or server_version, but the schema already handles most of the meaning.

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 the many sibling tools by focusing on the attestation timeline of an assumption, and explicitly notes it is read-only with no side effects.

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 guidance on when to use the tool: to diagnose coverage that depends on an active attestation. It also names alternatives explicitly — submit_attestation for recording a new attestation and get_entity for current assumption fields — making the routing decision clear.

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