Sign a fact (the moat — facts, not judgments)

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the signing algorithm (Ed25519) and output purpose (hand to counterparty), but omits whether the operation is read-only or modifies state, any permissions needed, or rate limits. Partial transparency.

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?

Description is a single, clear sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, though could benefit from a brief hint about parameters.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is too short. It does not describe the return format, prerequisites (e.g., identity setup), or behavior when required parameters are omitted or malformed.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains 'fact' with examples but does not elaborate on 'subject' or 'evidence'. Partial semantic help but insufficient for all three parameters.

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 signs a fact with Ed25519, distinguishes facts from opinions, and gives examples (outcome, price, merchant detail). The verb 'get' and resource 'attestation of a verifiable FACT' are specific and differentiate from sibling tools like reputation or identity.

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 implies usage when an agent needs a signed, verifiable fact to hand to a counterparty, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives. It lacks counterparties for when to use other tools.

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