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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a read operation by saying 'Resolve' and 'Returns,' and it lists key return fields, but it does not explicitly state side-effect safety, permissions, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 tightly written sentences with no wasted wording. The core action and return fields are front-loaded, followed by the use case.

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 low-complexity read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It names the returned fields, but it could say more about what tier values mean or what happens when resolution fails.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description mentions resolving a passport/agent and returning a capability band, but it adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema, especially for the optional 'need' parameter.

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 and resource: resolve trust score and reputation for a passport/agent. It also clarifies the intended use for evaluating counterparties, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like pabandi_verify_passport or pabandi_verify_trust_attestation.

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?

Gives a clear usage context: agents should use it to evaluate counterparties before transacting. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5.

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