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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses pricing (0.005 USDC standard / 0.02 deep), the payment mechanism via x402_payment, that deep mode performs a live probe, and that the output is an Ed25519 JWS verifiable against /.well-known/jwks.json. This gives the agent strong behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 dense but efficient and front-loads the core purpose, pricing, and verification requirements. The parenthetical '(§3.1)' is a minor low-value inclusion, but otherwise every clause contributes relevant information.

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 paid cryptographic trust tool with no output schema, the description covers what the attestation contains, how it is signed and verified, payment requirements, and the deep-probe behavior. That is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional explanation.

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 67%, and the description adds meaningful semantics for two parameters: it explains that deep triggers a fresh synchronous probe and costs more, and that x402_payment accepts 'dev' in the dev facilitator. The id parameter's format is only covered by the schema pattern, but overall the description meaningfully supplements 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 states a specific deliverable: a signed pre-transaction attestation covering identity, liveness, pricing integrity, tier, score, and flags. It clearly distinguishes this from raw agent-record reads by emphasizing the signed attestation and pre-transaction context, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 phrase 'pre-transaction' establishes when to use it, and the description explains the standard vs deep modes with the latter running a fresh synchronous probe. It does not explicitly compare against siblings like get_agent_record or check_agent_health, but the usage context is clear.

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