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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It states the tool 'checks' the registry, implying a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly confirm there are no state changes or mutations. The outcome ('you receive a badge') is ambiguous as to whether the tool itself assigns the badge or merely reports eligibility. Missing explicit return type or error behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with the primary purpose and followed by supporting details. All four sentences earn their place: the verifier action, the registry checked, the outcome, and the optionality. No redundant or filler content.

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 the tool's modest complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main elements: what it verifies, where it checks, the result, and optionality. However, it does not explicitly state the tool's return value (e.g., a boolean or badge status) or error handling, which would be useful for an agent to interpret the result correctly.

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 input schema already describes the agent_wallet parameter as 'Your agent wallet address on Base' with a regex pattern, giving 100% coverage. The description adds context that the wallet is checked against the AgentBook registry, tying the parameter to the verification action. But it doesn't provide additional format details or examples, so it remains at baseline.

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 states the tool verifies that an agent is backed by a human via World AgentKit by checking the on-chain AgentBook registry. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_agent_standing and get_agent_readiness by focusing specifically on World ID trust verification. The verb 'verify' and resource 'AgentBook registry' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context that the tool is optional and that unverified agents can still use the platform normally, which helps decide when to invoke it. It also mentions a prerequisite (registration) and links to the registration page. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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