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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the result is a signed ed25519 credential and the issuer key is fetchable at /.well-known/musedin-issuer.json, telling the agent how to trust the response.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the outcome and followed by credential and identifier details. No filler, though the phrasing is compact to the point that 'joined muse' terminology assumes familiarity.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so partially, explaining that the response is a signed credential and where to find the issuer key. An agent has enough to call it and interpret the result, with only minor gaps about the exact response shape.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already lists 'muse_…, agent_… or a name.' The description goes beyond it by disclosing the name-resolution rule (a name works only when a single joined muse has it), which the schema does not state and which materially affects how the caller supplies the argument.

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 conveys a specific operation (checking/returning verification status) on a specific resource (a muse), plus the credential it produces. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_profile, but the verification/credential framing is distinct enough that an agent can identify it.

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?

'By muse_id, or by name when one joined muse has it' gives the identifier forms to use and the constraint on name lookup, which is real usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative (e.g., get_profile) or when-not guidance.

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