Inspect time-stamp (RFC 3161 response, token or TSTInfo)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description still adds real behavior: the PKI_* refusal when bytes match none of the three structures, strict:true escalating the first engine warning (with the concrete PKI_DIAG_CMS_SET_NOT_SORTED case for OpenSSL tokens), and the warning that the TSA name is 'as STATED (a hint, not an identity)'. It also flags that accuracy null means undeclared, which prevents a false-negative read.

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?

Front-loaded with the capability and the structure order, then verification routing, then failure modes, then the frugality hint — a sensible priority order. The prose is dense and em-dash heavy, with the TSTInfo field list packed into one long clause, but no sentence is filler.

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 an 8-parameter inspection tool with a full output schema and safety annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: accepted input forms, auto-detection, per-view contents, failure signalling, and the hand-off to verify_timestamp. Return-value detail is legitimately left to the output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond it: it clarifies what 'summary' actually keeps (status, genTime, serial, imprint) rather than the schema's vague 'scalar fields only', and reinforces that `as` overrides auto-detection and shows one reading's exact refusal. fields, limits, pemMode and encodingRules are left entirely to the schema, which is adequate given full coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: a read-only RFC 3161 report over TimeStampResp, TimeStampToken, or bare TSTInfo, with the auto-detection order spelled out. It enumerates what each view surfaces (policy, imprint, serial, genTime, accuracy, nonce, TSA name, CMS envelope), so an agent knows exactly what it gets without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Parsing proves nothing — verify_timestamp is the verdict (imprint, TSA signature, chain, revocation)', naming the sibling and the condition that selects it. It also gives a token-frugal mode (verbosity:'summary') and the `as` override for ambiguous inputs, so both when-to-use and how-to-scope are covered.

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