check_attestation

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. Discloses public access, return fields including status enum, and that it returns hedera_tx and certificate_url. Does not mention idempotency or side effects, but as a read-only check, these are less critical.

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?

Very concise: three bullet-like USE WHEN lines, one line for return shape, one line for access. No redundant sentences. Front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Single-parameter tool with return shape described in text. Sibling tools provide context. No output schema, but description covers statuses. Could mention error handling or pagination, but overall sufficient for expected usage.

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% with clear description for session_id. Description does not add meaning beyond schema ('The session ID returned by initiate_attestation' is already in schema). Baseline score of 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?

Verb 'Look up' and resource 'status of an attestation session' are specific. Distinguishes from siblings like initiate_attestation (initiation) and submit_attestation (submission) by clarifying it's for checking status and retrieving results.

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?

Explicit 'USE WHEN' list with three scenarios (polling, certificate retrieval, checking expiration/tamper) provides clear context. Notes public nature (no API key). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names, but implied by sibling list.

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