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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a useful behavioral disclosure given that no annotations are provided. It also indicates the output includes a verdict and decoded transactions, giving some sense of what the tool returns. However, it does not disclose details like whether the agent must be registered, whether the evidence is historical or live, or what happens if no breach exists. The read-only note is valuable but the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Verdict plus the decoded transactions that breached the mandate'), followed by a clear read-only note and a parameter explanation. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool, though the Args block is slightly redundant with the input schema.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are presumably documented there, and the description adds the key context that the output includes decoded transactions. With one parameter and a clear read-only note, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not clarify how this tool relates to moltproof_verdict or moltproof_verify, which is a notable gap given the large sibling set.

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 compensate for the single 'agent' parameter. The description says 'agent: public agent identifier (address / DID / ERC-8004 ref)', which adds meaningful format context beyond the schema's bare 'string' type. However, it does not explain how the identifier is used or what formats are accepted in practice, so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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: it returns a verdict plus the decoded transactions that breached the mandate. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like moltproof_verdict (which likely returns just the verdict) and moltproof_verify (which likely verifies something). However, it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 implies usage: call it with an agent identifier to get evidence for a mandate breach. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus moltproof_verdict or moltproof_verify, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the basic use case, but the lack of explicit alternatives leaves a gap.

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