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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: it is free/no payment, runs four specific checks, uses a 10-minute TTL with on-chain time, and only recovers the signer when a signature is present. This is far more transparent than the annotations alone.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, then efficiently lists the four checks in a numbered format. Every sentence earns its place, and the length is justified by the complexity of the verification logic.

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 description covers what the tool does, the input provenance, the checks performed, time-based behavior, and when to use it. An output schema is present, so documenting return values is unnecessary. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic context by explaining that the attestation may be a peer-attached proof-of-diligence rather than only an API response, but the parameter-level details are already well 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Verify a GBLIN Risk Attestation.' It further specifies the provenance of the object and enumerates the four distinct checks, making it unmistakably different from sibling tools like payments.verify or receipts.verify.

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 last sentence gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use before you trust any counterparty/peer that claims it checked market risk via GBLIN.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over other verify tools.

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