decision_card_signature_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main outputs (count, method/key/timestamp, hash) but lacks details on side effects (likely read-only), error conditions, or permissions. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 description is a single sentence that packs essential information, but it could be improved by breaking it into shorter phrases or using bullet points for readability. Nonetheless, it is efficient and contains no superfluous words.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main outputs and purpose but lacks details on return format, error handling, and how to choose between url and document_json. It is sufficient for basic understanding but not fully complete.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters url and document_json. It only mentions the card's signatures block without clarifying how each parameter is used or that they are alternatives. This leaves the agent to infer parameter semantics from the schema alone.

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 performs a structural check on the signatures block of a Decision Card, specifically counting signers and showing method/key/timestamp. It also explicitly mentions returning the canonical-JSON hash and pairing with attestation_verify, differentiating it from sibling tools like decision_card_inspect or attestation_verify.

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 as a precursor to cryptographic verification via attestation_verify, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives like decision_card_validate.

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