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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds meaningful context beyond them by disclosing the score range (0–1000), that the record includes a repayment history, and that the source is a public on-chain record that cannot be faked. It omits failure behavior (e.g., unknown agent_id) and any latency/rate-limit notes.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action and value proposition (credit score + repayment record) come first, followed by sibling differentiation and usage advice.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does name both return elements (score range and repayment record) plus the read-only nature. It could go further on the shape of the repayment record or error cases, but it covers what an agent needs 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents agent_id including the ERC-8004 example value. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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 ('Look up any agent's Priors score and repayment record') and names the data source (Robinhood Chain). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling agent_record ('Shorter than agent_record'), so an agent can choose between them without opening either schema.

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 a clear usage context ('Useful before trusting or paying an agent') and an implicit alternative comparison to agent_record for fuller records. It does not state explicit exclusions or the inverse condition for preferring agent_record, so it falls short of a 5.

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