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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by listing the inputs to the score and noting the endpoint mirror. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output, then the composition detail. No wasted words or redundant 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, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers function and composition. It lacks only explicit usage alternatives, which are not critical for this straightforward read-only 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 covers 100% of the single parameter (handle) with a clear description. The text adds no extra parameter guidance beyond that, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns a composite trust score (0-100) with classification, and specifically names the constituent data sources (confidence_tier, evidence tier, ERC-8004, risk flags). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_agent_details or verify_counterparty.

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?

Provides context ('for delegation decisions') and implies a single-call alternative to multiple lookups, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. No exclusions are given, making it usable but not strongly differentiated.

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