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

Beyond the read-only/open-world/idempotent annotations, the description adds crucial interpretation: each link reports 'whether it holds,' completeness is 'a factual count, not a score,' publication is opt-in, and 'found:false' means absence of information rather than a negative signal. This prevents misuse and misreading of results.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first states the chain, the second clarifies the output semantics, and the third explains the meaning of a missing result. It is front-loaded with the core action and stays dense without padding.

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 one simple parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the chain being resolved, how to interpret link status and completeness, and the meaning of found:false. Nothing critical is missing for calling the tool correctly.

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% for the single required agentId parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little color by framing the agent as a 'paying agent,' but it does not materially extend the schema's parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it 'Resolves who stands behind a paying agent' and enumerates the chain (agent -> principal -> mandate -> credential -> wallet). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools centered on payment decisions, screen addresses, and flags.

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 the tool is for investigating an agent's accountability chain, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over the listed siblings or mention exclusion criteria. The intended use is clear from context but left to inference.

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