Record counter-signed disclosure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains that text is digested locally, an action record is signed with the caller's key, the ledger counter-signs into a per-signer hash chain, and no API key is needed—providing meaningful behavioral context beyond basic input/output expectations.

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 three sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing the mechanism. Every clause contributes information about local digesting, signing, counter-signing, and account self-provisioning.

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 the tool's signing/ledger complexity and lack of output schema or annotations, the description provides essential context: local digesting, key-based signing, ledger counter-signing, and self-provisioning. It stops short of full operational guidance, such as parameter combination rules, but is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 67%, and the description adds some context by linking agentId to the signer's key and text to local digesting. However, it does not clarify the semantics of kind, medium, or resourceUrl, so the description only partially compensates for the schema's gaps.

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 identifies a specific action—recording disclosure evidence—and details the process: local digest, signing, and ledger counter-signing. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like issue_receipt and record_refund by focusing on EU AI Act Art 50 disclosure evidence.

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 for recording EU AI Act Art 50 disclosure evidence and highlights a one-call flow, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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