get_signed_rwa_attestation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contents (ed25519 verification metadata) but does not mention read-only nature, idempotency, or other behavioral traits like caching or external calls.

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 fluff. Every word serves a clear function.

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?

The description partially describes the output (verification metadata) but does not fully characterize the 'summary view' or what is excluded compared to the full version. With no output schema, the description could be more complete.

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% and the tool description only reaffirms the default behavior ('Defaults to most recent') without adding new meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., examples).

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 tool returns a 'summary view' of a signed RWA trust attestation, with the verb 'get' and the resource identified. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_signed_rwa_attestation_full' by specifying summary and listing the included verification metadata.

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 explains when to use it: for a specific protocol or the most recent if no slug is given. However, it does not explicitly guide when not to use it or compare with alternatives like the 'full' version or the listing tool.

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