get_signed_rwa_attestation_full

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool returns a full document with specific elements, implying a read operation. However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or potential size of the response, which could affect agent behavior.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and usage. No wasted words; every sentence is informative.

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 no output schema, the description hints at the return value by listing components. It also references a sibling for parameter details. For a simple tool with one optional parameter, this is adequately complete, though a note about output format would be helpful.

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 coverage is 100% and the description adds value by explaining the default behavior and referencing a sibling for available slugs. This goes beyond the schema's description, making parameter usage clear.

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 it gets the full signed RWA attestation document with every proof_element, agent_signature, and orchestrator_signature. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_signed_rwa_attestation' by specifying 'full' and enumerating all components.

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 says 'Use this when you want to independently verify the chain cryptographically,' providing a clear use case. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to select it for full verification.

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