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

Beyond readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, the description discloses that it reads only the supplied material with no network fetch or external write, that it is paid (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact) with 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, that X-Wever-Wallet-Proof must bind the exact JSON arguments and route, and that the response carries an Ed25519 signed receipt. That is exactly the auth, cost and side-effect context an agent needs before invoking a metered endpoint.

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?

Purpose and output findings are front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by verdicts, transport, safety, payment and receipt details in a sensible order. It is dense but readable; the main cost is the sprawling negative list ('no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write') and the trailing contract/human-page URLs, which are boilerplate-ish.

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, and the description compensates by naming the report's findings and the three possible verdicts (not_authoritative, incomplete, authoritative) plus the signed receipt. Payment, wallet-proof binding and the read-only guarantee are all covered, so nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: it explains that each registry entry carries aliases, owner, purpose, access scope and status, and that the sources array represents the lists the registry should cover. It also pre-announces which fields the check treats as required for authority, which maps schema fields to scoring logic rather than merely restating them.

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: submit an agent registry plus the deployment/usage/credential/billing lists it should cover, and receive a report on coverage gaps. The enumerated findings (unregistered agents, ownerless entries, phantom-active or wrongly-retired entries, missing authoritative fields) make the output concrete. It never names a sibling tool it is distinct from, so it stops short of a 5.

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 by the required inputs: you bring a registry and comparison lists when you want to prove the registry is authoritative or complete. There is no explicit when-to-use framing and no exclusions or named alternatives among the many agent-* siblings (identity-check, trust-scorecard, permission-ledger).

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