Generate Governance Block

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is largely covered. The description adds that key material is involved ('cryptographically signed') and what the block contains (terms, revocation policy, content hash), but says nothing about determinism, key validity requirements, or the failure mode when keys are malformed. It does not contradict the annotations — signing is a pure computation.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with what the tool produces front-loaded. It could carry more substance given the 10-parameter surface, but nothing is wasted.

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 a 10-parameter tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is thin: it never explains the permission enums, the required key pair, or what the returned block looks like or how it is meant to be embedded. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the domain semantics are largely missing.

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?

With 10 parameters and only 30% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it only loosely gestures at 'terms', 'revocation policy', and 'content hash'. The five permission-style enum parameters (caching, training, inference, derivative, redistribution) and their four allowed values are never explained, nor is the role of license_url or terms_version, and 'revocation policy' has no corresponding parameter at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Generate a cryptographically signed governance block') plus the deployment context (embedding in HTML pages). The verb 'generate' plus 'signed' implicitly separates it from the verify_/parse_ siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as verify_governance_block, parse_governance_block_html, or create_chained_governance_block. The agent must infer the workflow position from the tool name alone.

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