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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists the exact return fields (valid, signerMatch, recovered, fresh, score, passesThreshold) and discloses the verifications performed (freshness, operator match, min score).

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, with only two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds usage guidance and return format. No unnecessary 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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and output. However, the payload parameter lacks structural detail, which is a notable gap for an object parameter.

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 0%. The description mentions payload and signature as required, and minScore as optional. However, it does not explain the structure of the payload object, which is a nested object with unknown properties. This leaves ambiguity for the AI agent.

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 it verifies a MainStreet EIP-712 signed attestation, recovers the signer, checks freshness and operator match, and enforces a minimum score. It is distinct from sibling tools like mainstreet_attestation or mainstreet_validate.

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 explicitly advises using it to trust a verdict from another agent without re-fetching, providing clear context. It lacks mention of when not to use it or alternatives, but the guidance is specific and helpful.

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