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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by disclosing the allow/deny-with-reasons output, a Privi-signed attestation valid 60 minutes that is cacheable, and the zero cost. It does not explain how the organization key is transmitted (header vs. param) or any rate limits.

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 the core question (is this wallet operated by an audited AI agent, and how trustworthy is it right now?) before the mechanical details, and every sentence carries information. Slightly dense with the attestation/validity/logging clause stacked at the end, but no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing the return (allow/deny with reasons, cacheable 60-minute attestation), which is exactly what an agent needs. Annotations cover the read-only profile, and 100% schema coverage handles the inputs; only the grade scale and how min_grade/min_score interact are left unstated.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3: address, purpose, min_grade, min_score and require_signed are all documented in the schema itself. The description only lightly reinforces this (purpose is 'recorded in your log if you send your key') and introduces an organization-key concept that is not a schema parameter, so it adds little beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb (check) and resource (a wallet's AI-agent status / Privi Passport), and states concretely what is returned: allow/deny with reasons plus a signed attestation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kya_bind_wallet, kya_wallets and passport_verify, which bind, list, or verify passports rather than resolve a wallet to a trust decision.

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 names the callers/contexts it serves (chains, DeFi protocols, exchanges, stablecoin issuers, x402 facilitators) and notes it is free and can be logged by sending an organization key. It stops short of naming alternatives such as passport_verify or stating when a check is unnecessary, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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