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

With annotations covering readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds substantive context: the signed profile structure, behavior for missing chain wallets (rows kept with evaluated: false), semantics of checks (held/not held, never a balance), the conditionSetVersion logging instruction, cost (3 credits, 6 with proof), and return shape (per-dimension pass/fail counts and summary, no score). It doesn't detail failure modes beyond the proof enum's decline behavior in schema, but that's largely covered in the schema. No contradictions with 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then flows through optional chain behavior, signed profile semantics, cost, and a URL. Every sentence provides useful information. It's a bit dense (multiple clauses per sentence) but remains digestible and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 8 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and the complexity of multi-chain evaluation, the description is quite complete: it explains the signed profile structure, behavior for missing wallets, check semantics, return values (counts and summary), and cost. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state authentication requirements or rate limits, but annotations and the URL provide partial coverage.

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 100% and the schema descriptions for parameters like wallet, suiWallet, tronWallet, etc., are detailed and include patterns and effects (adds dimension, lets rows evaluate). The description adds high-level semantics about which chains add dimensions versus only enabling evaluation, but much of this is also present in the schema. With full schema coverage, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource (generate a signed wallet trust fact profile for an EVM wallet) and elaborates the content (presence checks organized into named dimensions) and the target consumer (AI agent-to-agent trust decisions). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like insumer_attest or insumer_batch_wallet_trust by specifying the signed profile artifact and optional multi-chain behavior.

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 conveys when to use it (agent-to-agent trust decisions) and includes operational guidance like logging conditionSetVersion and never rejecting on it, plus cost information. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare to siblings such as insumer_attest or batch variants.

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