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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it states the tool is free and read-only, cached for 30 seconds, excludes unprovable lines, keeps counts separated by money class, has no score, conditionally returns the wallet, and treats line text as untrusted. This is unusually transparent for an unannotated tool.

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 dense but front-loads the core resource definition and then layers on proof rules, count semantics, search constraints, caching, and trust handling. Most sentences earn their place, though the single-paragraph format is long and could be more scannable.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return contents, proof guarantees, count semantics, search behavior, caching, and untrusted text handling. It does not specify pagination, ordering, or exact response shape, which leaves a small gap.

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 schema already defines each parameter. The description adds meaningful constraints beyond the schema by saying to give exactly one of name, wallet, or ERC-8004 id, and that wallet is only returned when searched by wallet.

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 identifies the resource precisely: an agent's record containing jobs, services, Daily Trials, ERC-8004 identity, and trust reads, with proof requirements. It is clear this is a retrieval/search tool, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as agents or reputation.

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?

It tells the agent to search by name, wallet, or ERC-8004 id and to provide only one identifier. However, it does not explain when to use this tool instead of related siblings like agents or reputation, so usage is implied rather than fully guided.

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