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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses the graceful degradation to verified=false on missing data and details the exact return fields (aggregated counters plus per-lender breakdown). This adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 three sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and a behavioral note. Each sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler material.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description lists the exact return fields, explains the degradation behavior, and provides usage context. For a simple one-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, this is comprehensive.

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?

The schema has no description for merchantId (0% coverage), but the tool name and description make it obvious that merchantId identifies the merchant. The description doesn't explicitly define the parameter, but the context is sufficient for a single, self-explanatory parameter with a pattern defined in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('merchant's repayment-history rollup'), explicitly scoping to EAS Schema C attestations. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting the cross-lender aggregation and explicitly contrasting with verify_credit_risk.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('when a buyer-agent / cohort engine / underwriter needs a quick read') and an explicit alternative ('For lender-agent self-queries use verify_credit_risk with a lenderId filter instead'). This provides clear context and exclusion.

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