legitify.submit_attestation_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that a request is submitted and that the resulting status is 'pending', which is useful state information. However, it omits side effects, idempotency, permissions, and error behavior, leaving significant gaps for a mutation-type tool.

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 description is a single sentence with no filler; it front-loads the action and includes the most critical return information. Brevity is appropriate even though other dimensions are lacking.

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?

This is a complex 9-parameter write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation in the description. A single sentence about submitting and returning an ID is far from enough for an agent to understand required inputs, workflow relationships, or consequences.

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 0% and there are 9 parameters, yet the description mentions none of them. It does not explain required 'title' and 'summary' or the meaning of 'kind', 'evidence', 'spend_usd', 'risk_level', 'requested_action', or other fields, so an agent cannot reliably 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 uses a specific verb 'Submit' and a clear resource ('a request for human attestation'), and it states the immediate outcome (attestation_request_id with status=pending). This distinguishes the tool from the sibling get/list/review tools, even without naming 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_attestation_status, list_pending_requests, or review_request. The wording only states what the tool does, not the conditions under which it should be chosen.

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