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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the trust model (zero-trust), cryptographic nature, and a pay-per-use cost of 0.015 USDC on Base, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose failure modes, return semantics, or whether external network calls are made.

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 core content is a single, front-loaded sentence with clear purpose and context. The 'Auto-created from research:' prefix adds little functional value, but the overall length is appropriate and the pricing is usefully bracketed.

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 validation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what output indicates success/failure and what input format is expected. It provides purpose and cost but omits return values, error behavior, and input syntax, leaving an agent with incomplete information to invoke it 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 coverage is 100% because the single parameter has the description 'entrada', but that description is uninformative. The main description adds meaning by implying the input should be an authorization token or delegation chain, though it does not specify format or encoding.

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 uses a specific verb ('validates') with a clear resource ('cryptographically verifiable authorization tokens and delegation chains') and a concrete outcome ('confirm an agent is genuinely authorized to perform a specific action'). This clearly differentiates it from related sibling tools like agent-trust-registry by focusing on cryptographic token/delegation-chain validation.

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 implies usage for zero-trust authorization checks, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling routing are provided.

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