HODLXXI Read-Only

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

The description indicates a read-like operation returning a signed document, but with no annotations, it misses details on authentication, potential errors, or what 'signed' implies. It adds some value by listing contents but lacks full behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes key components. Every word earns its place 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?

Given the simplicity (no params, output schema present), the description is mostly complete. It could mention that it's a read-only operation or provide a hint about when to call it, but it still adequately covers the essentials.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since none exist. It correctly implies the tool requires no input.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'signed Agent Protocol discovery document', listing specific contents (public endpoint links, trust surfaces, timestamp, agent signature). It distinguishes from sibling tools like hodlxxi_get_agent_identity or hodlxxi_get_skills by focusing on discovery.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. There is no explicit context or alternatives mentioned, leaving the agent to infer use from the tool name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only describes the return content and does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. The word 'public' hints at read-only access, but it is not explicitly stated.

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 a single sentence that effectively conveys the purpose and content scope. It could be more concise by removing the enumerated items, but it remains clear and front-loaded.

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?

Given zero parameters and an output schema, the description adequately explains the return value. However, it lacks behavioral and usage guidance, which are essential for the agent to use the tool correctly. The output schema exists, so return value details are not required in the description.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so parameter documentation is not needed. The description does not need to add parameter semantics beyond the schema, and since coverage is 100%, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 returns the 'canonical public agent identity document' and lists included contents (capabilities, pricing, endpoints, etc.). The verb 'Return' is specific and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools that return specific sub-documents.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus more specific siblings like hodlxxi_get_capabilities or hodlxxi_get_skills. It is implied that this tool provides a comprehensive identity document, but without clear usage or exclusion criteria, the agent may not know which tool to choose.

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

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

Without annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a 'discovery index' with listed fields, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, no details are given about authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The description is minimally adequate.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. All information is front-loaded, clearly stating what the tool returns and listing the key fields.

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?

Given the low complexity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It could be improved by noting that the output schema describes the structure, but for a simple retrieval tool it suffices.

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 input schema has no parameters (schema description coverage 100%). The description adds value by enumerating the output fields (skill names, descriptions, URLs, types, digests), which is not evident from the empty schema. This helps the agent understand what the tool returns.

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 returns 'the Agent Skills discovery index' with specific fields: skill names, descriptions, URLs, types, and SHA-256 digests. It uses the verb 'return' and specifies the resource 'Agent Skills discovery index', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like hodlxxi_get_skills.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hodlxxi_get_skills or other get_* tools. The description does not indicate prerequisites, when not to use it, or mention alternative tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states 'Return' implying a read operation, but does not explicitly disclose it is non-mutating, auth requirements, or side effects. Adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the key action and object. Perfectly concise.

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 (0 params, output schema present). Description fully covers what it returns. No need for more detail given the structured output schema fills remaining gaps.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters, so baseline is 4. Description adds no param info, which is appropriate. Schema coverage is 100% automatically.

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 it returns a public RFC-style API linkset catalog with service descriptions, documentation links, and status links. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from many sibling tools like hodlxxi_get_agent_discovery and hodlxxi_get_chain_health.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given many sibling tools, the lack of differentiation leaves agents to guess.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses pagination and parameter constraints (limit 1-100, offset non-negative). However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or idempotency, which would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the purpose and constraints. Every word is justified.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the core purpose and parameter constraints. However, it lacks context on prerequisites, use cases, or what the output contains beyond 'signed receipt attestations'.

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?

Since schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in input schema), the description adds value by specifying valid ranges for limit and offset. It also hints at pagination via 'paginated', but does not explicitly explain how limit and offset control pagination.

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 returns paginated signed receipt attestations. The verb 'Return' and resource are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like hodlxxi_get_receipt or hodlxxi_verify_receipt, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does and parameter constraints, offering no context for choosing it over sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only lists return contents but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. For a retrieval tool, minimal behavioral context is provided.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's output without fluff. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, so the description is mostly complete. It lists the key components of the document. Could be improved by mentioning that it's a read-only operation, but not required.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by specifying what the signed capabilities document contains (pricing, limits, endpoint registry, etc.), going beyond the empty 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 returns a 'signed capabilities document' and enumerates its contents (job schemas, pricing, limits, etc.). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like hodlxxi_get_agent_discovery or hodlxxi_get_skills.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. The agent is left to infer context from the name alone, which is insufficient for proper tool selection among 24 similar 'get_' tools.

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

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

No annotations provided, and the description only states the return action without disclosing behavioral traits such as idempotency, authentication needs, or whether the schema is cached. As a simple read operation, more context would be beneficial.

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?

Single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. No extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description adequately covers what is returned. However, it does not explain why one would need the schema versus the capabilities themselves, but that is minor.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since the schema has zero parameters.

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 it returns the JSON Schema for the HODLXXI capabilities document, using specific verb 'Return' and resource 'JSON Schema published for the signed HODLXXI capabilities document'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hodlxxi_get_capabilities which likely return the actual capabilities.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling 'hodlxxi_get_*' tools, explicit context on when to retrieve the schema vs. the capabilities themselves is missing.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It states it returns data, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'when available' means precisely. Minimal behavioral insight beyond the implied read nature.

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?

Single sentence of 15 words, clearly front-loaded with the verb 'Return' and lists specific outputs. Every word adds value, no fluff.

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?

Given there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately lists the key returned fields. It omits any mention of error cases or data freshness, but is fairly complete for a simple health check.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline score for 0 parameters is 4.

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?

Clearly states it returns attestation-chain continuity status, event count, hashes, and timestamp. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_attestations or get_operator_continuity, which may also serve similar data.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites or context. For a tool with no parameters, it could indicate it is a general health check, but it lacks explicit usage direction.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It lists returned fields (descriptor, policy, etc.) but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication needs, or other traits. The listing of fields provides some transparency but is incomplete.

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?

Single sentence covering purpose and output, reasonably concise. Minor improvement could be splitting into two sentences for readability, but overall no wasted words.

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?

Output schema exists, so return value details are covered elsewhere. The description mentions several return fields, which is helpful. However, it omits the optional nature and default of the covenant_id parameter, and the tool's simplicity means a bit more completeness would be easy.

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 description must compensate. It mentions 'by validated covenant identifier' but does not explain what validates the identifier or the default value's significance. The single parameter's semantics are only minimally clarified beyond the name.

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 it returns a covenant artifact by identifier, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling get tools by focusing on covenants. However, the jargon ('covenant artifact', 'non-claims') may reduce clarity for some agents.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies use when a covenant identifier is available, but there is no mention of when not to use it or comparison with siblings like hodlxxi_get_covenant_countdown.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or response format beyond listing output fields. Lacks depth on machine-readability or conservative trust interpretation.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action verb 'Return', lists key output fields. No wasted words, appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the essential return fields. However, it could explain the 'conservative trust interpretation' or provide more context on when to call this tool among many siblings.

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?

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100% with 0 params), so baseline is 4. Description adds no param info, but none is needed.

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?

Clearly states the tool returns a machine-readable covenant countdown with specific fields (chain height, spend paths, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools which focus on other aspects like agent discovery or chain health.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it returns, without providing context on appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that no private JWK fields are exposed, which adds transparency. However, it omits other behavioral aspects like authentication requirements or rate limits.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no extraneous words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

For a simple tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is sufficient to understand the tool's function and a key safety aspect. It could mention when to retrieve the JWKS (e.g., during token verification) but is adequate for the complexity.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. According to the guidelines, baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no additional information is required.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'public RSA JSON Web Key Set', specifying its purpose for verifying JWT signatures. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on a unique cryptographic key material.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, although the purpose is clear. It lacks guidance on context or exclusions, but the nullarity of parameters and narrow focus make usage obvious.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only lists return contents but omits whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or has any side effects. The lack of behavioral disclosure is a gap.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key contents. It efficiently conveys the tool's output without unnecessary words.

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?

For a no-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately summarizes the output contents. It does not mention behavioral context (e.g., read-only), but the output schema likely covers detailed return structure.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), which sets a baseline of 4. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed.

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 returns a normalized marketplace listing and enumerates its components (discovery links, job types, pricing, skills, etc.). It is specific, uses a verb+resource structure, and is easily distinguished from sibling tools like hodlxxi_get_skills or hodlxxi_get_reputation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., individual get_* tools for separate components). It does not specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

Despite lack of annotations, the description discloses that the tool is read-only (routes to a read-only sidecar) and returns live data. This adds behavioral context beyond a simple description.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and a key detail (routing). No wasted words.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what it does and where the data comes from. Minor omission: fails to mention potential errors or output format, but completeness is adequate.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is complete (100%). The description need not add param info; baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 it returns a live MCP discovery server card for a specific URL, with additional routing context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that return other resources.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Usage is implied by the resource name, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral traits. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('Return') and details the output contents. While not exhaustive, it covers the essential behavior for a parameterless, safe retrieval tool.

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 entire description is a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the action ('Return') and lists specific items, leaving no room for ambiguity. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given zero parameters, an existing output schema, and a clear enumeration of returned items, the description fully covers what the agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. No additional context is necessary for this simple retrieval 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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). According to guidelines, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed since there are none.

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 returns a 'signed Nostr announcement template' and includes specific components ('advertised NIP-89/NIP-90 kinds, discovery links, and explicit non-goals'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'hodlxxi_get_agent_discovery' or 'hodlxxi_get_capabilities' by specifying unique content, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the AI agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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

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

Without annotations, the description only implies a read-only operation via 'Return', but fails to explicitly state behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, or any constraints. Additional transparency is needed.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the tool's action, scope, and key fields without any wasted words, achieving excellent conciseness.

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?

For a zero-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context by naming the standard (NIP-17/NIP-59) and listing specific metadata fields, making the return value clear and 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?

With zero parameters, the schema is trivial. The description adds essential meaning by detailing what the output includes, which is beyond the schema's empty structure. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 verb 'Return', the resource 'public NIP-17/NIP-59 messaging policy metadata', and lists specific fields (intake status, custody limitations, accepted kind, size ceiling), making it highly specific and distinct from sibling 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions. The purpose is implicit but not explicit about usage context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states what is returned (metadata) but does not mention whether it requires authentication, has side effects, or any operational constraints. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 a single sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word adds meaning.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient information about what is returned. However, it could better situate this tool among siblings and explain when to use it over similar discovery tools.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter info. The description adds value by detailing what the tool returns, compensating for the lack of parameters. According to guidelines, a baseline of 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('OAuth authorization-server metadata'), and explicitly lists included items (agent_auth discovery block, disabled registration endpoint references). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which retrieve other specific metadata.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of siblings like hodlxxi_get_openid_configuration or hodlxxi_get_agent_discovery. The description implies it is for OAuth metadata but lacks explicit usage context or exclusion criteria.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states the tool returns metadata, implying a read operation, but does not mention any authorization requirements, side effects, or other constraints. The name suggests OAuth protection, but the description lacks clarity on access conditions.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb. It is concise, uses no filler words, and every element contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 has no parameters and an output schema, so the description's job is to explain what it does. It lists the key metadata fields, which is sufficient for basic use. However, it could be slightly more complete by contrasting with related tools, but given the simplicity, it is adequate.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by listing the output fields, which clarifies what the tool returns, although the output schema already defines this. No parameter info is needed.

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 uses a clear verb 'Return' and identifies the specific resource 'OAuth protected-resource metadata'. It lists key fields like resource issuer, authorization servers, JWKS URI, scopes, and bearer method, which distinguishes it from sibling tools such as hodlxxi_get_oauth_authorization_server and hodlxxi_get_openid_configuration.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling tools for different OAuth and metadata endpoints, the lack of usage context or exclusions makes it hard for an agent to choose appropriately.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only describes output content, not behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, auth needs).

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?

Single sentence, clear and to the point, with efficient listing of metadata components.

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?

Covers output adequately; output schema exists for further detail. Lacks behavioral context but sufficient for a simple get operation.

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?

No parameters exist, baseline 4. Description adds value by detailing output, but no parameter guidance needed.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'OpenID Connect discovery metadata', listing specific items. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on the full configuration.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hodlxxi_get_jwks. The description only lists contents, not context for selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The tool appears to be a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated, and the description focuses only on the return content.

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 a single sentence listing the tool's output elements. It is concise and front-loaded with the key action, though the list could be more structured. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description suffices in explaining the return values. However, it lacks any context about the tool's behavior (e.g., no parameters, always returns data) and does not mention any conditions or side effects, making it minimally adequate.

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?

With zero parameters, the input schema is fully described. The baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description need not add parameter-specific details, but it does not clarify if any implicit parameters or context are required.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'operator-continuity statement' along with specific components like public keys and covenant status. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like hodlxxi_get_covenant, though the name and listed items imply uniqueness.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides no context for usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions signed receipt and optional requester-proof fields, but it does not disclose the return format, error behavior, or any side effects. The description is vague about the dependency on historical receipts.

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 a single sentence, which is concise. However, the second part about requester-proof fields is somewhat vague, slightly reducing clarity. Overall, it is adequately brief.

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?

Given the simple input (1 required param) and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the purpose and hints at variable output, but lacks details on the dependency and usage context.

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%, and the description adds no semantics for the 'job_id' parameter beyond its name. It does not provide format, source, or example, leaving the agent to infer meaning.

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 returns a previously issued signed receipt by job identifier. It specifies the verb 'Return' and the resource 'signed receipt', and distinguishes from sibling 'hodlxxi_verify_receipt' by focusing on retrieval.

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 implies usage for retrieving receipts by job ID, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'hodlxxi_verify_receipt'. No exclusions or scenarios are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the report is 'public machine-readable' and includes a 'canonical SHA-256 field when present', but does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what happens if the identifier is invalid.

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 a single, well-structured sentence of 21 words that clearly states the tool's purpose and key detail (SHA-256 field). It is front-loaded but could be slightly more scannable with a break for the SHA-256 note.

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 (1 param, no annotations) but has an output schema (implied). The description covers the essential purpose, identifier requirement, and a notable output field (SHA-256). It is complete enough for a retrieval tool, though more behavioral context would strengthen it.

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 single parameter 'report_id' has no schema description (0% coverage). The tool description adds meaning by calling it a 'validated report identifier', clarifying that it must be a validated string. This adds value beyond the bare type definition, though format constraints are not specified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return'), clearly identifies the resource ('trust or readiness report'), and qualifies the scope ('by validated report identifier'). It also mentions the canonical SHA-256 field, distinguishing it from numerous sibling tools like hodlxxi_get_trust_summary or hodlxxi_get_receipt.

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 implies usage when a validated report ID is available, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for other report types or trust data). No exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations are provided.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation by stating it returns data, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, auth requirements, or any other behavioral traits. However, with zero parameters, the behavior is straightforward.

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 a single sentence that lists the returned components. It is clear and relatively concise, though slightly long due to enumeration. No extra filler.

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?

Given the complexity (returning multiple metrics) and the existence of an output schema, the description outlines what is returned but does not explain use cases or how this tool fits among many siblings. It is adequate but not 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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 specifically states it returns aggregate public operating history, job counts, attestation count, trust metrics, and trends. The verb 'Return' indicates a read operation, and the tool name 'get_reputation' clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_agent_identity' or 'get_skills'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and return data imply it's for reputation queries, there is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Among many siblings, more clarity would help.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, response size, or potential side effects. It provides some behavioral insight by listing return contents.

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 a single sentence that conveys all necessary information with no redundancies or fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

For a parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It mentions 'checked-in' which adds context. Minor gaps: no mention of pagination or whether the catalog is static or dynamic, but these are likely covered by the output schema.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema is 100% covered. The description adds meaning by explaining the return data (catalog with metadata, paths, URLs), which is especially valuable since the schema has no properties.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'checked-in public skill catalog', and specifies what is included (metadata, repository paths, installation URLs). This distinguishes it from siblings like hodlxxi_get_agent_skills_index or hodlxxi_get_api_catalog.

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 implies usage for fetching the full skill catalog but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool is 'public' and 'paginated', but does not disclose safety (read-only vs. destructive), authentication needs, or rate limits. The name implies a read operation, but that is not explicit.

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?

Single sentence, compact and front-loaded. No redundancy, but could be streamlined further by omitting the list of fields if they are in the output schema.

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 detailed. However, the description lacks coverage of usage scenarios, behavioral constraints, and parameter semantics, making it incomplete for an agent to fully leverage the 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not add meaning to the 'limit' and 'offset' parameters beyond mentioning pagination. The defaults and types are already in the schema, but the description fails to explain constraints or behavior (e.g., maximum limit).

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 verb 'Return' and specific resource 'public trust-event chain', listing key fields (hashes, receipt linkage, timestamps, public key, signatures). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hodlxxi_get_trust_summary or hodlxxi_get_receipt.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites or limitations. The description is purely declarative with no usage context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions 'validated', hinting at validation. It does not disclose side effects, error handling, or behavioral details beyond returning a summary.

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?

Single concise sentence with no redundant information. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks explanation of validation behavior or what the summary contains. Output schema existence reduces burden, so it meets minimum viability.

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 0%, so description must explain the parameter. It mentions 'validated public agent identifier' but adds no syntax, format, or purpose beyond the name. The default value is not explained.

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 explicitly states it returns a compact trust summary for a validated public agent identifier, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like hodlxxi_get_trust_events and hodlxxi_get_reputation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, but does not provide context or exclusions for usage.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses actions and non-actions, and lists output fields. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or safe for retry, nor does it mention authorization or rate limits. Its behavioral transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 consists of two sentences that together convey the action, outputs, and important exclusions. There is no redundant or irrelevant information. Every word serves a purpose, achieving excellent conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does and does not do. It could mention whether the operation is idempotent or safe to retry, but this is a minor gap.

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 description mentions 'by job identifier', clearly explaining that the 'job_id' parameter is the identifier of a previously issued receipt. Since schema coverage is 0%, this adds essential meaning beyond the raw schema. Additional format or origin details would improve it to a 5.

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 action (verify a receipt) and the resource (job identifier), and lists return fields. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get_receipt' by using 'verify' and returning additional fields like verification status and attestation, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 explicitly states what the tool does NOT do (poll /agent/jobs, mint a receipt), which provides some usage boundaries. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_receipt, or mention prerequisites such as needing a previously issued receipt.

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