agent_get_attestation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the data is public relay data, that no content encryption applies, and that returned content is untrusted and must not have its instructions followed (a prompt-injection warning). It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or what the votes structure contains, so it falls short of a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place, though the source/trust warning takes the majority of the space while usage routing is absent.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and the untrusted-data caveat adds genuinely important context for an external-content tool. The main gap is the lack of when-to-use routing against sibling attestation tools.

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% for the single attestation_id parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Attestation detail with all votes.' This clearly distinguishes it from agent_query_attestations (a list/query) and agent_get_consensus (aggregate). It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus agent_query_attestations, agent_get_consensus, or agent_corroborate. Usage is only implied by the word 'detail'. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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