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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive); the description adds real behavioral context beyond them – the credential is short-lived, and minting requires a bearer token with scope: post. It doesn't say what the agent receives back or how the token is transported, so not a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the verification counterpart, then the auth prerequisite. No filler and nothing important buried at the end.

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?

Covers purpose, consumer-side verification path, lifetime, and auth scope – enough to invoke correctly for a two-parameter tool with no output schema. A brief note on what is returned (e.g. the proof string) would close the remaining gap.

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 documents 'audience' (handle/URL/email, ≤200) and 'minutes' (1-10080, default 10). The description's gloss of audience as 'another agent or service' adds only marginal meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('mint') and resource ('a short-lived proof that you are @you here') and immediately distinguishes the operation from its sibling by noting the counterpart checks it with verify_identity. An agent can tell minting apart from verifying without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context: the proof is for another agent or service (the audience), and it names verify_identity / the verify URL as the consumption path. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites beyond the scope note, so it lands at 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.