issue_attestation

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

With no annotations, the description fully compensates by disclosing JWT contents, signing key (Ed25519), authentication scope requirement, example response, and the default for ttl_hours. No contradiction exists.

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 well-structured with a summary, bullet points of JWT contents, parameter details, example, and response format. It is informative but could be slightly more concise by removing some redundancy (e.g., portability statement repeated).

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, authentication, parameter defaults, and example output. Missing error handling or rate limit info, but overall sufficient for selection and invocation.

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%, but the description adds meaning: agent_id is implied by context, access_token requires specific scope, ttl_hours is validity period with a config-based default. An example call further clarifies usage.

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 issues a signed attestation (JWT) capturing trust scores, specifying verb (issue), resource (signed attestation/JWT), and content. It distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_attestation (which verifies) and list_my_attestations (which lists).

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 explains the attestation is portable for third-party verification without querying the service, and that verifiers can use verify_attestation without authentication. It provides usage context but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like get_agent_profile.

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