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

Annotations provide safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). Description notes it is 'Free' and that passing the wallet records it, which implies a side effect (recording) beyond a pure read. It doesn't explicitly disclose that this is a write/record operation, which is a notable gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

Two compact sentences with no wasted words. Front-loads 'Free' and purpose. Could structure the field list more cleanly but is efficient overall.

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?

Without an output schema, the description enumerates the summary's contents, which helps. However, it omits key behavioral details: the recording side effect, whether callers need auth, and how the summary is returned. Adequate but with clear 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the wallet parameter is fully documented in the schema. Description adds only 'Pass wallet to record it', which hints at persistence but doesn't clarify format or that the parameter is optional.

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?

States it produces a short factual summary for the human owner covering what AgentZ is, price, record, risks, and revocation. Distinguishable from siblings like get_track_record or agent_health_check, though 'AgentZ' and 'owner' are context-dependent.

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?

Implies usage via 'For the agent's human owner' and 'Pass wallet to record it', but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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