costwright_certify

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

Discloses key traits: tamper-evident, Ed25519-signed, server-side re-run, logged to public transparency log. With no annotations, description carries burden and does well, though prerequisites (auth, network) are omitted.

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 sentences, front-loaded with action and key features. No extraneous information; every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers purpose, key features, and return values (cert_id, signed cert, verify_url). No output schema, but description compensates. Missing detail on 'policy' but overall sufficient for a certification tool.

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 67% but description adds little beyond 'same input as check plus label'. Does not explain 'policy' enum values (default vs strict) or the meaning of 'label'. Relies heavily on schema which is minimal.

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?

Clearly states it issues a tamper-evident Ed25519-signed budget certificate. Distinguishes from siblings by mentioning same input as costwright_check plus optional label and specific returns (cert_id, signed cert, verify_url).

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?

Implies use for auditable proof of spend ceiling and compares to costwright_check, but does not explicitly contrast with costwright_pubkey or costwright_verify. Lacks explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use.

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