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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it fetches an external registry, performs live tests in probe mode ('live-tests a bounded sample'), and returns a signed, timestamped, recomputable output. It also mentions the hollow-detector and the ALIVE/HOLLOW/DEAD breakdown, and discloses pricing/tier, which are useful behavioral traits.

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 efficient: each clause adds unique information. It front-loads purpose, then details the actions, then provides use cases and pricing. No filler or repetition; it earns its length.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (metrics, breakdown, signed/timestamped output). It covers both actions, parameters (via schema), use cases, and operational details (price, tier). For a tool with this complexity, the description is remarkably 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema by explaining what the census metrics are ('how many carry a cryptographically-signed card, how many declare no auth, how many fail conformance') and what probe returns ('ALIVE/HOLLOW/DEAD breakdown'). This contextualizes the action parameter and gives the agent a better understanding of expected outputs.

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 opens with 'Signed verified-registry audit' and concretely explains what it does: fetches a registry, re-grades its agents by signed-card presence, auth declarations, and conformance failures. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on directory-level auditing rather than individual agent verification, and explicitly states use cases ('vet an agent directory', 'find a real agent to transact with').

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?

Clear usage context is provided: 'Use to vet an agent directory before trusting its listings, or to find a real agent to transact with.' The description explains the two action modes (census vs probe) and when each is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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