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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Check' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state safety (e.g., no side effects) or any required permissions beyond the client_id. It also does not disclose what happens on invalid input or rate limits. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists the exact information the tool provides. There is no fluff or repetition, earning a top score.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the core purpose and the key output dimensions (trust level, score breakdown, tool access). It does not describe the response format, but for a simple status check with no nested objects, this is acceptable. A slight gap is that it could mention whether the result is a summary or detailed report, but not critical.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'client_id' with the description 'Your OAuth client_id.' The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so it does not exceed the schema's baseline. A score of 3 is warranted.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check' with a clear resource: 'agent's KYA trust level, score breakdown, and tool access.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like kya_register (likely registration) and other compliance tools. The tool's scope is clearly defined by listing three specific pieces of information.

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 when you need to inspect an agent's KYA status, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kya_register or compliance_preflight. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned, so the guidance is only implied.

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