Venice TEE Attestation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: no authentication is required, and crucially that fetching the evidence 'does not itself establish E2EE', which prevents a false sense of security. It stops short of disclosing caching/rate-limit behavior or exactly how the echoed values are structured for comparison.

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?

Three tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by the caller obligation and the security caveat. Every clause carries operational weight and nothing is padding.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates what comes back (echoed nonce, Intel TDX quote, optional NVIDIA evidence, debug-mode state, signing-key binding), covering the return shape for the agent. Combined with the auth and verification notes, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the call.

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 100%, with both 'model' and 'nonce' fully documented in the schema (including the 64-hex-char pattern that the description restates as '32-byte'). The description echoes the schema rather than adding syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (hardware-attestation evidence for a TEE-capable text model), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely related sibling venice_tee_signature, which an agent would need clarified before choosing between them.

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?

Usage is implied through the freshness requirement ('must supply a fresh 32-byte nonce') and the verification chain 'before trusting the key', which tells the agent this is a pre-trust evidence step. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no routing to the sibling venice_tee_signature, leaving selection to inference.

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