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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the highly relevant behavioral cue 'Read-only,' and its list of returned fields (defaulted, frozen status) tells the agent what it can learn. It does not discuss rate limits, caching, or freshness, but given the annotations, this is more than sufficient.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence lists the record's contents efficiently, and the second gives the decision rule and read-only status. No filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is a read-only query with one fully-documented parameter and no output schema. The description covers purpose, usage context, and the full set of returned fields, leaving little for an agent to wonder about. It could mention chain availability or freshness, but that is a minor gap for this complexity.

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 single agent_id parameter is fully documented in the schema with its type, range, and an example ('462'). The description adds no extra syntax or format information beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb ('Show') and resource ('a Priors agent's full credit record on Robinhood Chain'), then enumerates the exact fields returned. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like score_of, request_borrow, and request_repay, which each cover narrower slices of agent data.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it: 'Use it before trusting, paying or lending to an agent.' This names the decision contexts and implies the alternative siblings (score_of for just the score, request_borrow for lending actions) without ambiguity.

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