Signed decision attestation with an assurance level and explicit unknowns (PAID $2.50)

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive call, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the call costs 2.50 USD and settles via x402 in USDC on eip155:8453, i.e. it requires a payment flow on Base. What it omits is the behavior of the attestation itself — whether payment precedes the call, what the assurance level means, or how explicit unknowns are produced.

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 short lines with no padding, so it is not bloated. But the first line is a verbatim repetition of the tool title, which wastes half the available space and leaves the actual explanatory budget empty.

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 paid, non-idempotent, open-world tool with 7 undescribed parameters and no required fields, the description should at minimum explain how to populate decision/evidence/policy_set and how the paid route interacts with the call. The output schema covers return values, but the input side is left almost entirely unexplained.

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 0% across 7 parameters, and the description supplies no meaning for any of them: actor, as_of, policy, context, decision, evidence, policy_set are only bare titles with empty-string defaults. With every parameter undocumented in both places, an agent has to guess how to construct the decision, evidence list, or policy set.

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 names a specific artifact (a signed decision attestation carrying an assurance level and explicit unknowns), which is more informative than a bare title. However, it never states the action in verb form and does nothing to separate it from the many attestation siblings (v1_readiness_attest, v1_nav_attest, v1_uptime_attest, v1_spend_ledger_attest, v1_delivery_attest). An agent can guess it signs a decision record but not how it differs from the other attest tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance at all. The only selection signal is the price tag and the HTTP route, which tell the agent nothing about which situations warrant a decision attestation versus a readiness or spend-ledger attestation.

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