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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the backend is pending (Q3 2026), a critical behavioral aspect, and mentions the return type (array of attestation metadata). However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature or error handling, though the 'List' verb implies a read operation.

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 consists of three concise sentences: the purpose, the return format, and the backend status. Every clause adds essential information with no filler, and the key action is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, return type, and backend availability. It lacks guidance on when to use alternatives and potential limitations like pagination, but the core information is sufficient.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the 'did' parameter with a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema states, so a baseline score 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 clearly states 'List all attestations associated with a DID — issued, received, and expired,' which is a specific verb (List) and resource (attestations for a DID). It distinguishes from siblings by targeting attestations comprehensively, differentiating from verify_attestation (single) and get_trust_score (score).

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 implies usage for retrieving all attestations for a DID, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or any exclusions. It provides clear context but not direct guidance on alternative tools.

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