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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Check' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the mention of revocation types adds useful context. However, it does not disclose behavior such as return format, error conditions, or whether the tool interacts with external systems beyond what's implied.

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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action verb and immediately states the tool's purpose, making it highly concise.

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 one-parameter read-only tool without an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It explains the core purpose and types of revocation. It could explicitly state that it returns a boolean (true/false), but the name and verb 'Check' already imply this, so the gap is minor.

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% for the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning about the agent_address parameter beyond what the schema already provides ('Ethereum address of the agent').

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The description uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('agent's mandate has been revoked on Tracea'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_agent_info by focusing on revocation status. It also adds nuance with 'immediate, scheduled or partial revocation', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates the tool checks whether a mandate is revoked, which gives context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to siblings like get_agent_info, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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