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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the paid nature ($0.25 USDC), the two-step 402 handshake, and the REST auth bypass. It does not mention rate limits, idempotency of payment_tx, or failure modes beyond the initial 402, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns and the price, then explains the payment flow. Every sentence is useful, though the payment mechanics and content description could be slightly tighter. It is appropriately sized for a paid tool with a non-obvious two-call protocol.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and it still usefully summarizes the payload. With full parameter coverage and no annotations, it covers the key complexities: cost, payment handshake, and auth bypass. Minor gaps remain around error handling and payment_tx reuse.

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. The description adds workflow semantics beyond the schema by specifying that the retry must use the SAME arguments plus payment_tx, which clarifies that agent_id and days must be identical between the quote and payment calls.

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?

States a specific resource (full attestation history for an agent over a lookback window) and enumerates exactly what is included: work type, server-side quality scores, and on-chain anchor status. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling score/compare tools by being the complete audit trail rather than an aggregate.

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?

Gives explicit call mechanics: call without payment_tx to get the 402 quote, then retry with the same arguments plus payment_tx. It also notes that an fnet_ Bearer key on REST bypasses payment. It does not explicitly contrast when to use this versus mint_trust_score or mint_trust_compare, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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