Sign and register a statement

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds real beyond-schema behavior: the 4 MiB canopy limit, that the signed statement is persisted before sending so the content hash remains valid on failure, and that a payload path may not target the log key or the server home. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements for the grant, so not a 5.

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?

Four dense sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by input limits, side-effect semantics, and the next step. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return value (content hash that always names the saved statement), the size limit, the persistence/async semantics, and the follow-up call — everything needed to invoke and act on the result.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds one genuinely non-schema constraint on the payload parameter (a path may not point at the log key or inside the server's home) and notes the 4 MiB ceiling. The remaining five parameters (grant, issuer, baseUrl, subject, rootLogId) get no description-level clarification.

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+resource pair ("Sign a payload with the log key and register it") and names the scoping credential (your Forestrie-Grant), which separates it from siblings like issue_grant or register_grant. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow handoff: "Registration is accepted, not yet sequenced: call check_registration next." That routes the agent correctly post-call, but it never states when to prefer this over verify_registration, delegate_sealing, or other siblings, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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