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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses the trustLevel monotonic-floor rule with down-tiering on default, the exact return envelope shape, and graceful behavior on partial failures. This is substantial behavioral context not available in annotations.

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?

Four sentences with zero filler. Front-loaded with the purpose, then return structure, trustLevel algorithm, parameter usage, and failure behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a composite read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape, trustLevel logic, parameter conditions, and failure behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional information.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining that brandSlug includes the brand attestation slice and when to omit it. merchantId's role is implied as the essential identifier, but the description adds meaningful nuance to the optional parameter.

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 the specific verb 'compose' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'merchant's full trust dossier' assembled from three named EAS schemas. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_brand_attestation_status or verify_credit_risk by framing this as a consolidated read across multiple schemas.

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?

Provides conditional parameter guidance ('Pass brandSlug when known... omit when only merchantId is available') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. The phrase 'Three reads, one envelope' implies consolidation as a use case, but no direct comparison or exclusion of sibling tools is given.

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