Fetch SAP Attestation

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

Description reinforces read-only nature and SAP context, but annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=true. No contradictions; description adds context about inspecting state before mutations.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states function, second provides context. Efficiently front-loaded.

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?

Description, annotations, and schema together provide sufficient context for a read-only fetch tool. Output schema exists, parameters clear, and behavioral traits annotated. Minor gap: no mention of return value specifics, but output schema covers that.

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%, and description restates schema fields (agentPda, attester) without adding further semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it fetches an attestation PDA using agent PDA and optional attester wallet, with specific verb and resource. Distinct from siblings like sap_create_attestation and sap_revoke_attestation.

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 mentions read-only context and advises using reads for inspecting chain state before mutations. No explicit alternative named but the usage context is well defined.

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