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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: the data payload includes `dispute_contact_url` and is 'wrapped in the proof envelope.' However, it omits important behavioral details such as error responses, whether the tool is read-only (implied but not stated), and what 'null' tier means. The disclosure is partial, not comprehensive.

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 concise and to the point, with no redundant filler. However, the phrase 'first tool to name a third party' is odd and potentially confusing in a tool reference; it reads like a developer note rather than user-facing guidance. Still, the description is short enough that each sentence mostly earns its place.

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 lack of an output schema, the description does a decent job of indicating what is returned (attestation tier, a payload with `dispute_contact_url`, wrapped in a proof envelope). Yet it leaves gaps: no explanation of what the proof envelope is, how to interpret 'null', or any operational context. For a simple lookup tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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% (neither parameter has a description), so the description must compensate. It only offers 'for one (currency, issuer) pair,' which reinforces that the two parameters are a paired set, but it does not explain expected formats (e.g., ISO codes, strings), examples, or how to handle invalid values. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond that.

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 function: 'Return the attestation tier (verified / self-described / null) for one (currency, issuer) pair.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope structure that immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_amendment_status or get_amm_pool. The mention of a specific payload field further clarifies intent.

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 implies usage context: you use this tool when you need attestation for a specific (currency, issuer) pair. It does not explicitly provide alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the 'one pair' phrase hints at the intended granularity. There is no mention of when to prefer sibling tools.

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