erc8004-agent-liveness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by revealing the real-network dependency, the on-chain registration resolution, the actual MCP handshake, and the complete set of verdicts including failure modes like REGISTRATION_FETCH_FAILED and REGISTERED_UNREACHABLE.

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 dense but focused: every sentence adds essential information about the verification method, network context, and result enumeration. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and wastes no words.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description does an unusually good job covering return behavior by listing all verdicts. The only remaining gap is that it does not explicitly explain why or when an agent would need to be registered and how the caller should handle the verdicts, but this is minor for a single-parameter liveness check.

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?

There is no schema description coverage and the description does not directly define agent_id, but the overall text and tool name make it clear that agent_id identifies the registered agent to verify. This is usable but leaves some ambiguity about where the ID comes from or whether it is the registry ID.

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 states a precise verb and resource: it verifies whether an ERC-8004 registered agent is alive right now. It also names the concrete mechanism (on-chain registration resolution plus an MCP initialize handshake) and enumerates the possible outcomes, which makes the tool's behavior unmistakable.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need to confirm liveness of a registered agent by actually probing its declared endpoint. There are no sibling tools and no explicit exclusions, so it does not list alternatives, but the intended use is clear enough.

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