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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so the description's job is to add context — and it does by enumerating the returned risk tiers, the trust signals, data coverage, and pointing to a methodology reference. It does not disclose latency, rate limits, or how sparse coverage affects the tier, but the added context is substantive.

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 core function and return values come first, followed by audience and a methodology link — a sensible front-loaded order. The methodology URL is useful rather than filler, though the audience sentence is somewhat promotional and could be trimmed.

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 burden of explaining return values, and it does: risk tier scale, raw trust signals, data coverage, and methodology. For a three-parameter read-only lookup, that is close to sufficient, with the only gap being how missing coverage is handled.

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%, so all three parameters (agent_id, chain, registry) are already documented in the schema, including the default erc8004 and the chain slug list. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the work.

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 names a specific resource and operation: counterparty risk intelligence for an agent, returning a risk tier on a named scale plus trust signals and coverage. An agent can tell what it yields. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the close sibling trust_check or entity, so the boundary is slightly fuzzy.

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?

Usage is implied through the audience statement ('marketplace operators and escrow providers setting transaction parameters before a deal'), which tells an agent the scenario but not the decision rule. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to the sibling tools that also evaluate agents.

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