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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses important behavior: an agent with no history returns an honest zero and badge 'none', never a synthetic score, plus the exact per-call cost. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or response shape, but the key honesty guarantee is well communicated.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, with no filler. The parenthetical pricing detail earns its place since cost is decision-relevant for an agent.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema is minimal, but the description does not bridge the gap between 'an agent's history' and the sole free-text 'task' parameter, so an agent may not know what to pass. There is also no output schema, so a short note on the returned badge value would have made this more complete.

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?

The schema covers the single 'task' parameter at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning to that parameter and does not explain how the target agent is identified within the free-text task, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clearly states what the tool does: it returns a queryable trust badge summarizing an agent's verified settlement history and frames it as the pre-first-transaction check. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like reputation.lookup or trust.receipt-verify, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 gives an explicit usage context: check this before a first transaction as the minimum-viable signal. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the situational guidance is concrete and actionable.

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