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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: 'Append-only, declarative, no transfer' and 'self-signed', which inform the agent about side-effects and semantics. However, with no annotations, it misses other aspects like authentication, idempotency, error behavior, or return values, showing both value and gaps.

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 entire description is a single, information-dense sentence. It leads with the verb 'registers' and includes the resource and key qualifiers, with no wasted words or repetition.

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?

The description is insufficient for invoking the tool correctly given the open-ended schema. It never defines the structure of the Succession Statement, the signing mechanism, or what 'append-only' means operationally. The spec reference exists but is not elaborated enough to be actionable.

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?

The input schema defines a single 'statement' object with no properties, and the description does not explain what fields a Succession Statement should contain or what 'self-signed' means in practice. With 0% schema description coverage, the complete lack of parameter guidance makes it impossible to construct a valid request.

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 it 'registers a self-signed Succession Statement' and references SPEC-succession-v1, which is a specific action and resource. The name and resource help differentiate it from siblings like declare_principal and declare_receipt, though it doesn't 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The qualifiers 'Append-only, declarative, no transfer' describe behavioral constraints rather than usage context. There are no prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions mentioned.

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