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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states 'Read-only' and that results are 'Recomputable from public chain data + the public mandate', disclosing determinism, idempotence and that no private/auth-gated state is involved. It omits any note on latency, caching, or error behavior for an unregistered agent, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 deprecation warning is front-loaded, and the body is two short sentences plus a compact arg line with no filler. The pseudo-Google-style 'Args:' block is slightly heavier than needed for a single parameter but remains efficient.

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 return values need not be described, and the description covers deprecation, read-only semantics, data provenance and argument formats. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only edge cases (unknown agent, no mandate committed) are unaddressed.

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, and it does by enumerating the accepted identifier forms: 'agent address, did:moltrust / did:web, or ERC-8004 reference (public)'. That is real semantic value beyond the bare string type, though it gives no validation rules or examples.

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?

Names the specific resource and output shape ('Verdict + per-check breakdown for an agent against its committed mandate') and immediately disambiguates from the sibling molcheck_verdict by declaring itself a deprecated alias. An agent can identify both what it returns and which tool it should actually prefer without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool ('Deprecated alias of molcheck_verdict; use that name'), which is actionable when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, explain when a verdict is the right check versus molcheck_evidence or molcheck_verify, so routing within the broader family is left to inference.

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