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

The annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive hints, and the description adds meaningful behavioral guarantees: it never forwards credentials, signs, spends, settles, or executes the provider capability. It also clarifies it observes live evidence, going well beyond the annotation metadata.

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 front-loaded sentences deliver the core action, scope, evidence types, and safety guarantees with no filler. Every clause earns its place and the most decision-relevant information appears first.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations and a clear description, the definition is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that no output schema exists and the return value/format is not described, but the tool's purpose is simple enough that an agent can still use it effectively.

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 describes the target parameter as a public HTTPS provider, A2A, MCP, or API URL. The description repeats similar context but does not add significant new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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 names a specific action ('Run the free read-only SML Universal Trust Passport') and a specific resource ('a public HTTPS provider URL'), then lists exactly what evidence is observed. This is far more specific than the tool name alone and distinguishes it from related discovery/comparison tools.

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 clearly states the intended use case: verify a public HTTPS provider URL in a read-only manner. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but it provides enough context for an agent to select it for trust verification tasks.

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