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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and 'Recomputable from public chain data + the public mandate', disclosing that it is a deterministic read operation. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but the core behavioral trait is disclosed.

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 concise, with the main purpose first, followed by the read-only clarification and a clear args section. Every sentence earns its place, no redundancy.

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 a single parameter, an output schema, and the description covers purpose, parameter formats, and read-only nature. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly; output details are left to the schema. Minor gap: no mention of edge cases, but not critical.

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?

The schema only defines 'agent' as a string with no description. The description compensates fully by specifying accepted formats: agent address, did:moltrust / did:web, or ERC-8004 reference. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states a specific action: return a verdict and per-check breakdown for an agent against its mandate. It distinguishes itself from generic tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like moltproof_verify.

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 when you need the verdict for an agent, but it does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it. No explicit guidance for choosing between this and moltproof_verify.

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