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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by disclosing the credential expiration (1 hour), the requirement to attach headers, and the specific return fields. There is no contradiction with annotations. The description provides behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as the need to refresh and the effect on /settle requests.

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 three sentences: first sentence states purpose, second lists return values, third gives usage instructions and expiry. It is front-loaded, efficient, and every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, output schema present, annotations), the description covers purpose, return values, header attachment, and refresh requirement. It does not mention error cases or prerequisites (e.g., agent must be registered), but the output schema likely handles errors. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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% with one parameter (agentId) described in the schema as 'Agent ID from agent.kya_register (agt_...).' The description repeats this same information and adds no new meaning beyond the schema. With high coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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's purpose: 'Verify a registered DPX agent and receive a signed 1-hour credential.' It uses a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('registered DPX agent'), and the return values are enumerated. The sibling list includes agent.kya_register (registration) and agent.mandate_create (mandate creation), which are distinct; the description implies this is for agents already registered, so it distinguishes itself.

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 explains when to use the tool: it produces a credential that must be attached to DPX /settle requests, and it states 'call again to refresh before expiry.' This provides clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other tools like agent.kya_register or provide scenarios where it should not be used, so it misses some exclusion guidance.

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