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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that it returns a boolean and checks current validity, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on error behavior, side effects (even though it is likely read-only), or authentication needs, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 adding distinct value: the core action, use cases, and backend status. It is front-loaded with the key purpose, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 relatively simple verification tool, the description covers the essentials: what it verifies, when it's used, and its return type. The input schema covers parameters, and the boolean return is stated. It lacks details on error handling or edge cases, but the tool's simplicity reduces the need. Overall, it is sufficiently complete with minor gaps.

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%: both 'did' and 'attestation_hash' have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds only 'by hash,' which is already implied. Since the schema fully documents parameters, 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 the tool's function: 'Verify whether a specific attestation (by hash) was issued to a DID and is currently valid.' This is a specific verb+resource with a defined outcome (returns boolean). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_attestations and get_trust_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 provides useful context: 'Used in KYC-lite flows and smart-contract gating' and notes the backend is pending. This gives clear scenarios for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare with alternatives, falling 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.