Readiness Attest

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

Annotations already establish that this is non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the remote route and cost, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not explain side effects, required authorization, or what the attestation operation actually does.

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?

The text is short but under-specified rather than concise. It front-loads the title and route but omits the substantive purpose that would make the brevity acceptable.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is still incomplete for a 4-parameter attestation tool. It gives no purpose, no parameter semantics, and no usage context, leaving critical gaps beyond what the output schema can cover.

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?

There are 4 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description provides no information about any of them. Key fields like target, custodian, policy_snapshot, and readiness_evidence are left completely undocumented.

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 largely restates the title/name ('Readiness Attest') and gives a route, but does not explain what readiness attestation means, what it attests to, or how it differs from the many sibling attest/preflight 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 guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, prerequisites, or which sibling tool is the alternative. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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