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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds substantial value: exactly what the record contains (track record from paid delivered orders, seller/buyer, disputes lost, badge word_kept_99), how it is signed and anchored (Ed25519, ML-DSA-65, daily Bitcoin/Stellar anchoring, Merkle proof), and the fingerprint semantics. It also discloses cost and auth ('Free, no key').

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the first sentence is an unusually dense run-on with nested parentheses, and details like the 55-byte fingerprint separation and anchoring chains go beyond what is needed to select the tool. Information-rich but not tightly structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the return-value burden and describes the record's contents in detail, and annotations carry the safety profile. Only the parameter format is left to inference, keeping it just short of fully 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 description coverage is 0% for the single agent_id parameter, so the description carries the burden. 'Of any agent' and 'identity is origin, agent id and signature' imply which agent is targeted, but no format or syntax for agent_id is given. Baseline 3 for an obvious single parameter, with incomplete compensation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the full Word Pass of any agent') and explicitly carves out what it is not ('the record itself, no verdict; for a verdict use check_word_pass'). An agent can distinguish it from the many adjacent pass tools without opening either 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 concrete usage contexts ('Check a seller before you buy, show yours to anyone') and names the alternative for a different need (check_word_pass for verdicts). It offers no explicit when-not conditions beyond that routing hint, so it falls short of a full 5.

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