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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses output type (JWT), validity window (24h), and price (0.01 RLUSD), but says nothing about payment flow, wallet ownership checks, signature/verification behavior, or error handling.

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?

Two tight sentences with the defining properties front-loaded; nothing is repeated or padded.

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 credential-issuance tool with two undocumented parameters and no output schema, the definition is too thin. It omits how payment is supplied, what the JWT response contains, and how this relates to verification siblings.

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 0%, so the description needs to define wallet and payment_token. It only alludes to cost, which loosely implies why payment_token exists, but never explains the wallet parameter or whether payment_token is mandatory or optional.

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 the concrete resource produced (a portable attestation JWT) and its key properties (24h TTL, proves creditworthiness). It does not explicitly distinguish this from bureau_public_score or bureau_full_report, so an agent must infer that this is the portable-proof variant rather than a score/report.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to siblings such as bureau_verify_attestation or bureau_public_score. The phrase 'proving creditworthiness' hints at a use case, but the agent gets no exclusion rules or decision criteria.

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