mutualAuthVerifyAttest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly lists all 10 verification checks (signature, version negotiation, nonce match, timestamp freshness, certificate validity, issuer anchor check, binding constraints, downgrade detection, attestation grade policy, capability policy) and states the return behavior (ok:true on success or a failure reason). This exceeds minimal disclosure and gives the agent a strong mental model of the tool's operation.

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?

The description is three sentences: purpose, check list, and return behavior. Every sentence contributes unique information, with no redundant or filler content. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and the check list provides detailed value in a compact form.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 5 required) and lack of output schema, the description compensates by explaining the success/failure return and detailing all verification checks. The schema covers parameter semantics, so the description covers the non-schema aspects (return shape and internal checks). There is no missing behavioral context.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, though it does link the nonce parameters to the nonce-matching check. This is sufficient but not elevating.

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 clearly states the verb 'Verify' and the specific resource 'MutualAuthAttest against policy and trust anchors', which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'mutualAuthVerifyTrustBundle'. It also enumerates the exact scope of checks, leaving no ambiguity about what is verified.

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?

The description gives clear context: use this tool to verify a MutualAuthAttest against policy and trust anchors. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not cases, but the context is sufficiently clear given the sibling tools and the detailed check list. A slightly higher score would require explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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