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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral value by disclosing that testnet records are labelled TESTNET and that mainnet lookups return a typed NOT_PUBLISHED_MAINNET result — a useful signal about output shape. However, it never states the not-found behavior, whether the operation is read-only, or what happens when no lookup key is supplied.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The second sentence earns its place by describing the TESTNET/NOT_PUBLISHED_MAINNET return distinction, though the naming is terse jargon an agent must already know.

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?

A tool with three fully undocumented, all-optional parameters and no output schema needs the description to resolve lookup precedence and no-key behavior; it does neither. The return-labeling hints are helpful but do not close the gap on how to actually invoke it correctly.

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 supply all parameter meaning, and it does not. It lists the three keys as alternatives ('by validation_id, request_hash, or product') but never says whether they are mutually exclusive, which takes precedence if several are provided, or that the empty required list means no key is mandatory.

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?

Specific verb ('Resolve') plus a named resource ('ERC-8004 Validation Registry record') and the three lookup keys. The resource is clearly distinct from siblings like trust_verify_receipt or trust_get_bench_verdict, though it never names those siblings to draw the contrast explicitly.

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 three acceptable lookup keys imply the calling context, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over trust_verify_receipt or trust_resolve_agent, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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