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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the trust score is unsigned, the call does not re-probe or verify, and evidence is 'existing' rather than newly generated. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the main return categories, and the second delivers the key usage exclusion and alternative call in one clean, actionable clause.

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 tool has one simple parameter, full schema coverage, a detailed output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations. The description covers what is returned, the scope, and the important non-behavior, making it complete for correct invocation.

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% and the dataset_id parameter is already documented with an example. The description repeats 'one canonical dataset id' and 'e.g. fuelprice' but adds no substantive meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific action ('Return published attestation facts, the unsigned methodology-versioned trust score, numeric components...') tied to a concrete resource ('one canonical dataset id'). It also distinguishes itself from verify_attestation by explicitly saying it does not verify signatures.

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 explicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool ('does not re-probe or verify the signature') and names the alternative ('call verify_attestation separately'). It does not broadly contrast with all sibling tools, but provides clear routing for the most likely source of confusion.

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