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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it discloses the return payload (scored_audits, pass/fail counts, fail rate, Wilson lower bound, verdicts, flag counts), the special WAIT abstention handling, the INSUFFICIENT_HISTORY behavior below 10 audits, and the important fact that it emits evidence rather than a HALT decision.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with what it is before the usage directive and the return/edge-case details. Every sentence adds real information, though it is longer than strictly necessary for a one-parameter read tool.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain the return shape and edge cases – and it does so thoroughly, including the abstention semantics and the insufficient-history boundary. Nothing needed to call or interpret the result is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single agentAddress parameter is fully documented with a 0x pattern in the schema, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies 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?

Names a specific verb (query) and resource (an agent's DJZS trust score), plus its data provenance (on-chain Base mainnet, DJZS subgraph). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like verify_perp_trade or query_pol_certificates without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions: 'USE BEFORE delegating work, releasing escrow, or executing agent transactions.' It does not name alternatives or state when the sibling tools should be preferred instead, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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