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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the estimate nature of established_expires_epoch_est, null cases for at_risk, the authority of hosted /me, and the fact that marks are not publicly defined. These details help the agent interpret and trust the output correctly.

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 purpose but is a single dense run-on sentence with nested parentheticals. While each clause conveys useful field semantics, the structure is hard to parse and could be made more concise or formatted for readability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values. It thoroughly defines state (including readmitted logic), last_challenge_eligible_epoch, established_expires_epoch_est, at_risk, pending, and marks, including null and edge-case semantics.

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%, and both parameters (address and pending_limit) are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any syntax, constraints, or meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieving one Agent's established standing. It clearly distinguishes this from list_at_risk, which covers every Agent at risk. The opening phrase 'One Agent's established standing in one call' is specific enough for an agent to select it.

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?

It gives explicit use cases ('when does my standing lapse', 'why did it drop') and names the alternative tool for the broader query: 'use list_at_risk for every Agent at risk'. This directly tells the agent when to choose this tool versus its sibling.

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