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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses authentication requirements, the required scope/app role, and important negative behaviors ('never verifies a target, never sends messages, absence of evidence is never rendered as unsafe'). It doesn't discuss idempotency or response behavior, but still provides substantial 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?

Two tightly written sentences with the critical authentication requirement front-loaded and the non-behaviors condensed into a clear list. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

Strong on purpose, authentication, and side-effect boundaries, but incomplete for a 6-parameter creation tool with no output schema. Required parameters like consent_mode and requested_evidence_category are unexplained, and there is no indication of return value or failure behavior.

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%, and the description provides no parameter-level meaning for target_type, target_descriptor, requested_evidence_category, consent_mode, resolver_ref, or idempotency_key. It only frames the overall request concept, leaving agents to guess formats and semantics for required fields.

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 states a specific action ('create'), a precise resource ('a neutral, shareable request for independently re-checkable ECZ-ID evidence'), and explicitly disclaims verification and messaging, which differentiates it from siblings like resolve_identity. The tool's role is clear and distinguishable.

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 clear usage context: it is authenticated, requires a Microsoft Entra bearer token with a specific scope, and clarifies what the tool never does. It doesn't name sibling tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the boundary against verification and messaging serves as strong implicit guidance.

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