Create Reserve Attestation

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

The description says the tool "signs" an attestation and the tool is named create_reserve_attestation, requiring a private key and a false_attestation_penalty, all of which describe producing a persistent, disputable signed artifact. The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which contradicts the create/sign semantics — an agent relying on the annotation would assume no state is committed.

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 the core operation and with zero filler; the caveat is placed second where it reads as a warning. The brevity doubles as under-specification, which modestly caps the score.

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 an 11-parameter tool with 6 required fields, cryptographic key inputs, three enums, no output schema, and contradictory annotations, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine key handling, whether the artifact is persisted, what the TTL or penalty fields do, or what is returned.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden. It mentions only "amount" and "assurance_class", adding no format, constraint, or meaning beyond the schema, and says nothing about delegation_id, attester keys, attestation_basis, ttl_seconds, charter_anchor, or the penalty enum.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Sign a reserve attestation") that is distinguishable from siblings such as attest_to_floor or create_disclosure, and it names the two governing inputs (amount, assurance class). It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the most similar sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives like attest_to_floor, nor any mention of the required delegation_id prerequisite or the authority needed to sign. The one caveat ("does not check that the funds exist") is a useful warning but is not usage routing.

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