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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds material context annotations cannot: a per-lookup price of $0.01, a free lookup when no history exists, and that results are signed. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limiting, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences that lead with purpose and immediately follow with usage guidance. The pricing clause is appended at the end rather than front-loaded, but nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so precisely (counts, last seen, weighted score, confidence interval) while also covering cost and signing. An agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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 the agent_id property already documents the identity semantics, the /verify/schema lineage, and the reserved 'test-' prefix. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Agent reputation and trust score', 'Returns its signed verification history') and enumerates the exact payload: verified/passed/failed counts, last seen, recency-weighted score with 95% CI. It is easy to distinguish from verify_schema conceptually, though the description itself never names the sibling to contrast with.

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 clear operating contexts: 'use before relying on another AI agent', 'Check a counterparty before you pay, or see the record buyers will see.' The when-to-use is concrete and actionable, but there is no explicit when-not or a named alternative such as verify_schema.

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