propose_golden_loop_certification

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-read-only, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that this is a proposal stage for independent Spring/operator review, implying it does not itself grant certification. However, it does not disclose side effects on registry state, prerequisites, or failure behavior. With annotations carrying the basic safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One tight sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action and purpose. While it is arguably too terse for such a complex tool, as far as conciseness and structure go it is efficient and well organized.

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 tool with a massive input schema and a niche workflow involving Spring/operator review and registry-bound candidates, the one-line description omits prerequisites, workflow-stage context, and relationships to sibling tools. The rich schema partially compensates, but the description alone is not sufficient for an agent to confidently call this tool correctly.

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 0% and the description provides no parameter-specific guidance. The phrase 'registry-bound candidate' hints at the request.candidate field, but it does not explain company_ref, project_ref, or how to assemble the complex request object with readiness_input, readiness_result, and digests. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('Propose') on a specific resource ('one registry-bound candidate') with a clear purpose ('for independent Spring/operator review'). It avoids pure tautology by adding 'registry-bound' and 'independent review' context, but it does not distinguish among sibling certification proposal tools like propose_company_blueprint_certification.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention get_golden_loop_certification_candidate for retrieval, finalize_company_blueprint_certification for finalizing a different certification, or any conditions like requiring a readiness result. The description leaves the selection decision entirely to the agent.

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