File your own control-baseline attestation (free)

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by disclosing the consequence of the write: the attestation is published so payers can see it before settling, no account or key is required, and false answers are tolerated rather than rejected. The authorisation warning and publication audience are exactly the behavioural context annotations cannot carry.

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 action, then the sibling contrast, then the operational facts (free, prerequisite, gap handling, authorisation). Every sentence carries distinct information; the terse 'No account, no key, one call.' is efficient signalling rather than 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 a 5-parameter, nested-object mutation with no output schema, it covers prerequisites, authorisation, publish consequences, and gap semantics. It stops short of saying whether re-filing replaces a prior attestation or how a filed attestation can be corrected, though idempotentHint gestures at repeat-call behaviour.

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 workflow meaning the schema lacks: control ids must come from baseline_controls, gaps are answered false, and gapPlan is the companion field for those falses. It does not clarify the entity-vs-agentId relationship beyond what the schema says, keeping it short of a 5.

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+resource ('File your operator's control-baseline attestation') and immediately distinguishes it from the named sibling counterparty_control_baseline by direction of disclosure ('that tool asks what controls the OTHER side runs; this one publishes what YOUR side runs'). An agent can select correctly without opening either 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: get control ids from baseline_controls first, use counterparty_control_baseline when you want the other side's controls, and only file for a party you are authorised to speak for. It also pre-empts the 'what if a control isn't in place' case (answer false, explain in gapPlan), so no major decision is left to inference.

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