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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the return payload (payment record details and a 0–1000 score), and crucially discloses a behavioral limitation: records not confirmed by others are capped at 450 and the tool explicitly states this to avoid false confidence. It also mentions being free and requiring no account. While it does not explicitly state it is read-only, that is implied by the nature of a check. Missing explicit mention of data freshness or potential errors, but the disclosed cap and scoring logic add significant 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 moderately long but every sentence carries value: purpose, return contents, the scoring limitation, the free/no-account note, and the sibling alternative. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and maintains focus. While not the shortest possible, it is appropriately structured and free of filler.

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?

Given that this is a read-oriented check with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly: the purpose, the data returned, the scoring behavior, the cap on unconfirmed data, the cost/friction (free, no account), and the alternative for a different input type. No critical operational detail 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (agent_id and limit), so the description does not need to elaborate. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters themselves—it does not mention how limit affects results or any format specifics. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed it.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check whether'), a precise resource ('an AI agent'), and the decision contexts ('before you sell to it, extend terms to it, or take work from it'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling trust_check_wallet by stating the alternative for crypto wallets. This fully disambiguates it from nearby tools.

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 states explicit usage contexts (before selling, extending terms, or taking work) and provides an alternative ('For a crypto wallet rather than a registered agent, use trust_check_wallet instead'). It also includes operational guidance: 'Free, no account.' This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool versus its sibling.

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