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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing that resolution happens via the registry and that scheme and issuers default to the cell's standing configuration. It does not, however, explain behavior for accounts with no KYA level or what a check against a threshold 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?

It is a single dense sentence with no filler, and the default-behavior caveat is packed into a parenthetical rather than buried later. The phrasing is compact and front-loaded, though the fragment style makes it feel like a schema docstring rather than an actionable instruction.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the description leaves important gaps for a registry-backed lookup with zero schema documentation. Most critically, the minLevel parameter's effect is never stated, and there is no indication of what happens when an address has no resolvable level. For a four-parameter tool with no documented parameters, this is insufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for four parameters. It only sheds light on 'issuers' and 'schemeId' through the defaults clause; 'address' is self-evident from its pattern, but 'minLevel' is left entirely unexplained, leaving the agent unable to tell whether it acts as a filter, an assertion, or a threshold on the returned level.

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 identifies the resource (an account's level under a KYA scheme) and the resolution source (the registry), which is more specific than the title alone. However, it is written as a noun phrase describing a return value rather than stating an action, so the agent must infer that it performs a lookup. It also does not distinguish itself from the sibling identity_resolve or safety_status tools.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many siblings such as identity_resolve or safety_status. The parenthetical about defaults ('the cell's standing scheme and issuers by default') hints at a default context but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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