aps_create_attribution_receipt

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the receipt is not yet valid and needs consent, and mentions key parameters. However, it does not explicitly describe side effects, storage, or return value. Still adds significant behavioral context beyond schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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 9 parameters, 7 required, and no output schema, the description explains the need for keys, the consent dependency, and mentions gateway and TTL. It gives sufficient context for the workflow, though the return value is not specified.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra per-parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but it provides overall context for the operation.

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?

Clearly states it builds an AttributionReceipt attributing a claim to a third-party principal. The verb 'build' and resource 'AttributionReceipt' are specific, and the description distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the later consent step.

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 explains the tool's purpose and when to use it, and notably states that the receipt is not yet valid and requires subsequent consent via aps_sign_attribution_consent. This provides clear usage context and alternative action.

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