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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the on-chain source (Base mainnet, DJZS subgraph), the returned fields, and the halt condition, clearly implying a read-only query with no side effects.

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 concise: two main sentences plus a conditional halt instruction. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids any unnecessary 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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and clear sibling differentiation, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, when to use, what it returns, and a critical halt condition. A minor gap is the lack of error handling details, but overall it is complete.

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% for the single parameter 'agentAddress', with a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add further semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for full coverage.

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 queries an agent's DJZS trust score, aggregated on-chain from Base mainnet, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools (query_pol_certificates, verify_pm_trade) that deal with certificates and trade verification.

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 says 'USE BEFORE delegating work, releasing escrow, or executing agent transactions' and provides a halt condition for high failRate or repeated flags, giving clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives.

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