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

Despite readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it distinguishes verified_by_oceanalt from self_claimed, explains verifiability, and warns that found:false means no information rather than a negative signal. No contradiction with annotations.

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 every sentence earns its place: it differentiates the tool, explains the return structure, and provides important interpretation guidance. No filler or repetition.

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 adequately covers what is returned, how to interpret the two sets, and the meaning of found:false. It gives the agent enough context to call the tool correctly and act on the result.

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 both entity and agentId are already documented. The description does not add new parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it answers a distinct question from address screening and identifies the resource as the counterparty's self-attestation against the OceanAlt Agent Control Baseline. The purpose is specific and clearly differentiated from the sibling tool screen_address.

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 title gives a clear use context ('before paying') and the description explicitly contrasts when to use this tool versus address screening. It does not mention other siblings like payment_decision, but the guidance for the main alternative is unambiguous.

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