agent_query_attestations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real value: it discloses that data is public relay data with no content encryption, and warns that returned content is untrusted and should not be acted upon. It omits pagination/rate-limit behavior, but the security posture is well communicated.

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 purpose and followed by the critical security caveat. No filler; every sentence carries weight.

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 7-param, all-optional query tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and the important untrusted-data safety note. Return values are handled by the output schema, so remaining gaps are minor.

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%, so the schema already documents all seven filters. The description restates the filter dimensions but adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Query) and resource (public attestations) plus the filter dimensions. It is distinguishable from singular siblings like agent_get_attestation, though it does not explicitly name 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?

The listed filter dimensions (country, domain, type, agent, consensus) imply when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or routing to siblings like agent_get_attestation or agent_get_consensus.

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