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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key side effects: 'replacing any prior pin' and 'Requires x402 payment ($0.005)'. It also states the return structure. However, it does not mention failure conditions (e.g., what happens if the wallet has no SLA or payment fails), which the schema partially covers but the description could enhance.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the action and side effects, the use case, and the payment requirement. No fluff or repetition; it is concise and well-structured.

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's complexity (paid, state-changing, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers side effects (persist, replace), return format ({ attestation, canonical_payload, signature, signer }), payment requirement, and usage context. The only minor gap is failure behavior, but overall it is comprehensive for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'wallet' parameter, stating it must have an SLA on InsureLink. The tool description adds 'live cross-chain reputation' context but does not introduce new parameter meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool 'Recomputes the live cross-chain reputation for a wallet' and 'persists a fresh EIP-191 signed attestation', using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the 'cached free attestation', which aligns with sibling tools like get_attestation, making the purpose 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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use when you need an on-the-record, timestamp-fresh credential rather than the cached free attestation.' This directly contrasts with an alternative (likely get_attestation) and also notes the use case for 'insurers, registries, or counterparty agents'.

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