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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the semantics of a negative result: 'A not verified answer means Orbylon has no proof about them, not that they are fraudulent.' It also discloses what the record contains, enriching the agent's understanding beyond the structured annotations. No contradictions.

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 main return value, then provides usage guidance, then clarifies negative-result semantics. Each sentence earns its place, though it is slightly longer than strictly necessary. No 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 there is no output schema, the description does an excellent job of explaining what the tool returns: the domain-bound Ed25519 public key, verification time/method, and provable capabilities (signed documents, catalogue). It also clarifies the meaning of not-verified results. With only one simple parameter and rich behavioral disclosure, nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'domain' parameter already has a description with an example. The description repeats the domain concept but adds no new format, validation, or usage details beyond the schema. 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 ('Return') and resource ('verified identity record for a domain'), and enumerates the contents of the record (Ed25519 public key, verification timing/method, provable capabilities). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_verified_businesses (which lists many) and check_business_token (which presumably checks a token rather than looking up a domain).

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 an explicit when-to-use directive: 'Use this before trusting or transacting with a business.' This is strong contextual guidance. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the top tier for explicit when-not/alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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