Get an EU AI Act Article 53 attestation

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

Annotations already carry the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: output is a freshly-signed HS256 JWT verifiable offline against a canonical key, the embedded claims (iss/sub/iat/exp/jti/aud), the 365-day window cap, and the required auth (audit-scoped OPEDD_BUYER_TOKEN or OPEDD_BUYER_JWT).

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 core action and return format, and dense with actionable content, but it carries internal project references ('Phase 12 Wave 1 W1.4', 'INVARIANTS.md W1.6') that add noise for an agent.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully covers the return value (signed JWT with named claims), scope defaults, the hard window cap, auth requirements, and the boundary versus rsl_get. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description only restates scoping semantics (content_id default license-wide, window cap 365 days) that the schema itself provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Issue a signed JWT attesting to EU AI Act Article 53 compliance') with the exact endpoint, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling rsl_get (CDSM Article 4(3) reservation). An agent can pick it over any sibling without opening a 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?

Gives the concrete scenario ('artifact AI labs hand to legal/procurement for Article 53(1)(d) evidence') and an explicit when-NOT clause routing CDSM Article 4(3) obligations to rsl_get with 'never conflate'. Both the use case and the disambiguation are spelled out.

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