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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the $0.01 USDC x402 payment model, the prerequisite (BlindOracle passport), and a strong behavioral guarantee that an unknown agent yields UNVERIFIED rather than a fabricated score — important for a trust-sensitive call. It omits the on-chain/settlement mechanics and what 'identity only' actually contains.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the cost, the resource and the return states, with the pricing caveat parenthesized at the end. Information density is high, though the parenthetical price sits inside the purpose sentence and slightly interrupts the flow.

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 and no annotations, the description supplies the essential return semantics (AUDITED fields, UNVERIFIED fallback, identity-only case) and the payment model, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Missing only the shape of the 'identity only' payload and any rate/availability limits.

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?

There is one optional `task` parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description says nothing about how the `task` string should be formed or what it should contain, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 resource (an agent trust badge) and the exact outcomes it returns — AUDITED with risk score, proof id and expiry, or UNVERIFIED when no record exists — so an agent knows precisely what it gets back. It does not contrast itself with plausible siblings like reputation.lookup, security.audit-attestation or trust.receipt-verify, so selection across the trust cluster still requires guessing.

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?

Usage is implied by the pricing and the 'holding a BlindOracle passport' prerequisite, which tells an agent the tool is scoped to passport-holders. However there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over reputation.lookup or security.audit-attestation, and no exclusion criteria, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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