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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so well: it states the tool is read-only, free, uses a maintained sample of the first agentIds, and flags specific risk types. It also discloses the score range and the cross-referencing logic, giving the agent a clear behavioral model of what the tool does.

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 compact and front-loaded with the 'Verify-before-you-pay' tagline. It packs substantial information into four sentences without redundancy.

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 lacking an output schema and annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage patterns, input semantics, output score range, and limitations (sample-based coverage). This is sufficient for a relatively simple two-parameter tool.

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 already has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying the OR relationship between agentId and address, and the omit-both-to-list-sample behavior, which is not fully captured in 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?

The description clearly states the tool performs a read-only risk assessment (0-100) for ERC-8004 agents, cross-referencing declared identity against on-chain control. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling registry tools, which focus on MCP registry status and verification.

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 opens with 'Verify-before-you-pay,' explicitly signaling the intended use case: checking an agent before transacting. It also explains the parameter selection logic (look up by agentId or address, omit both to list the sample), but it does not name any alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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