certify_document

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that it is a single-party write operation to Hedera Hashgraph, hashes file locally (not sending file), and returns specific data (hash, transaction ID, timestamp, explorer URL). No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with opening statement, bulleted use cases, behavioral details, return values, and prerequisites. Every sentence is informative; no wasted words.

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?

Completely covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, and return values despite no output schema. Sibling tools are listed for context. All necessary information is present for an AI agent to decide and invoke 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 coverage is 100%, but description adds value: for file_path explains local SHA-256 hashing (file not sent), and for notify_email explains purpose (PDF certificate for human counterparty). Adds meaning beyond schema.

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?

Opens with a clear verb-phrase 'Create a tamper-evident, on-chain proof' specifying action and resource. Use cases listed explicitly. Distinguishes from sibling tool initiate_attestation by noting single-party vs. two-party operation.

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 states when to use (lock in contract, prove deliverable, anchor digital artifact) and when not to use (two-party agreements, directing to initiate_attestation). Also mentions prerequisite: requires Cryptair API key, with fallback to register_agent.

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