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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes further by naming the three return categories (proven facts anchored in Bitcoin and Stellar, self-declarations, conduct signals) and, importantly, the limits: "Facts only, no grade, no guarantee." That framing prevents an agent from over-reading the result as an endorsement.

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 core question is front-loaded and every sentence serves a purpose, but the middle parentheticals ("paid, delivered orders, disputes, as seller and buyer...", "operator, model, whether it can move money or hire other agents") pile up detail that could be tightened. Dense but not wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing what comes back — and it does, enumerating the three result categories plus the explicit caveat that no grade is produced. Nothing needed to call or interpret it correctly 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 both parameters are already documented, including the either/or relationship. The description only restates that an agent_id or "any Word Pass URL" is accepted, adding negligible meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

Opens with a concrete verb-and-resource framing ("One free call before you work with an agent you do not know") and explicitly scopes itself against the sibling check_word_pass: "wider than check_word_pass (which checks only the pass)". An agent can distinguish the two 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?

"One free call before you work with an agent you do not know" states the triggering condition, and the comparison to check_word_pass identifies the alternative and when it is insufficient. The free/no-key note removes a common pre-call question.

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