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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it explicitly discloses that it does NOT execute and does NOT move payment, and names the x402 mechanism. That tells the agent this is a safe, side-effect-free constructor rather than an action. It stops short of stating permissions, rate limits, or the request's shape.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and followed by the important non-execution caveat. The em-dash aside is slightly informal but earns its place by preventing a wrong assumption. No 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must characterize the return value, and it does ('the exact HTTP request needed to check...'). Combined with the explicit non-execution warning and the two-param naming, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though lacking param format detail and next-step guidance.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. It names both params and signals an OR relationship ('Provide job_id or attestor_did'), which is value beyond the bare schema. However it adds no format, meaning, or clarification on whether both may be supplied simultaneously — a real gap given both are 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 a specific verb+resource: 'Returns the exact HTTP request needed to check a kibble job or attestor for boilerplate attestation reuse.' Clear what the tool produces. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling *_request tools (did_bot_check_request, identity_rate_request), so it's not a 5.

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 makes clear this is a request-builder that must be executed elsewhere ('this tool does NOT run it or move any payment itself'), which is useful context for choosing it. But it gives no explicit when-to-use vs the sibling *_request tools and no indication of the follow-up step to actually execute the returned request.

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