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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses a specific behavioral rule: 'Liveness-aware: an agent with no public activity signal in 30+ days never gets a clean proceed, even if well-ranked.' It also mentions that the call is free and that pointers to paid analysis are included. This adds valuable behavioral context not present in the 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?

The description is concise, front-loaded, and impactful. The first sentence immediately communicates the tool's value proposition, followed by a specific behavioral note and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague wording.

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 (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the outcome (proceed/caution/reject with reasoning), the liveness behavior, usage context, and even mentions pointers to paid deeper analysis. No essential context is missing.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage of the single 'handle' parameter with a clear description ('Counterparty agent handle slug (e.g. "crewai")'). The tool description does not add new parameter details beyond the schema, but it does provide context for how the handle is used in the pre-transaction decision. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate given 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'should my agent deal with this counterparty right now?' It returns 'proceed / caution / reject with reasoning,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_agents or get_agent_trust. The phrasing 'THE pre-transaction question' firmly establishes its unique role.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use before paying, delegating to, or integrating any agent.' It also mentions alternatives by noting that deeper analysis (full risk decomposition, history, signed attestation) is paid, with pointers included in the response. This gives clear when-to-use and when-to-consider-other-tools context.

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