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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is a public view and that owner contact data is never returned, which is important privacy information. But it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what auth beyond client_id is required, or any rate-limit or side-effect behavior.

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 efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. The parenthetical privacy note is compact and adds value without excess 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does: trust level, score breakdown, and tool access. It also sets a clear privacy boundary by noting that owner contact data is never returned. For a one-parameter read status tool, this is complete enough.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the single parameter client_id is fully documented as 'Your OAuth client_id' in the schema. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or meaning beyond that, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check agent's KYA trust level, score breakdown, and tool access.' It clearly conveys what the tool returns, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool kya_register or name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: this is a status-check tool for an agent's KYA standing, and the parenthetical notes it is a public view. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative such as kya_register.

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