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

Adds useful context beyond annotations: it describes the two possible outcomes (linked:true vs link_required) and states it does not create, change, or remove anything, reinforcing the readOnly/non-destructive hints. This edges above baseline, though it slightly restates what readOnlyHint/destructiveHint already convey.

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, front-loading the purpose and following with inputs and the alternative. Mostly earns its space, with minor overlap between the outcome description and the annotations.

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?

Complete for a read-only check: annotations cover safety, an output schema exists, and the description supplies the decision outcomes and the redirect to proofable_verify. No further information is needed to call 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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description restates the agentWallet/agentId conditional but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so 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+resource ('Check whether an agent is set up to act for your profile') and explicitly scopes what is reported (linked:true with identity proof and delegation, or link_required). It also distinguishes itself from proofable_verify, so the agent can pick it over siblings without opening schemas.

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 concrete usage conditions ('Given agentWallet, plus agentId when one account hosts several') and an explicit alternative with the condition that selects it: 'to grant or change authority, use proofable_verify with agent-delegation.' Nothing is left to inference.

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