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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the advisory and non-blocking behavior, signed response type, and equivalence to an API endpoint. It describes the tool as adding a risk layer, giving the agent clear expectations. Minor gap: no mention of error behavior or side effects, but for a verification tool this is reasonable.

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 short, purposeful sentences. It front-loads the action and adds only essential context. No fluff, clear structure.

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?

For a simple verification tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and behavior well. However, it fails to describe 3 of 4 parameters, leaving gaps in operational understanding. The presence of output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but parameter semantics remain incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only explains 'iss' as the validated issuer; chain, iss_kind, and wallet_address are left to schema defaults and names, with no added semantic context. This leaves the agent guessing about expected values and meaning.

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 'Get an advisory risk verdict for a validated MCP issuer', identifying the specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on issuer risk verdict, as opposed to export_audit_bundle or score_counterparty.

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?

Provides explicit placement guidance: 'Attach this at your MCP `iss` validation step' and clarifies its role: 'identity is your job, this adds risk.' It also notes advisory, non-blocking nature, guiding when to use. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state exclusions.

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