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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the free preview behavior, the paid endpoint requirement, the exact payment amount, the HTTP endpoint, and the response fields. This gives the agent a clear model of what the tool does and its side effects (payment).

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 two sentences with the main purpose front-loaded in the first. The second sentence is dense but packed with necessary details (payment, endpoint, response fields, usage advice). Every sentence earns its place; slightly long but not wasteful.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the actual response fields (snapshot_age_seconds, etc.). It also covers payment prerequisites, the endpoint, and a practical use case. For a probing tool, this is complete within its scope.

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 schema already documents the wallet parameter with a pattern and description, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing how the wallet is used in the paid endpoint URL and connecting it to the freshness probe, which helps the agent understand the parameter's role beyond the schema definition.

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 uses a specific verb ('probes') and clearly defines the resource ('wallet's reputation snapshot and persisted attestation'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_attestation by focusing on freshness, and includes the specific response fields, making its unique 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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use this before paying for a fresh attestation mint' and a decision rule ('if is_stale=false you can skip the mint'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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