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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses signing (Ed25519, hash-chained), never returns forced guess, lists supported resolvers. Does not detail error conditions or rate limits, but overall transparent.

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?

Concise, front-loaded with key action and result. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Describes return values (CONFIRMED, REFUTED, ERROR) and cryptographic signing. No output schema, but covers core behavior. Open resolver additionalProperties lack guidance, but overall sufficient for an AI agent to use.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds context like 'public reputation ledger' for agent, clarifies claim format, and mentions resolver types including 'multi-exchange price consensus' not in schema. Open additionalProperties in resolver not explained.

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?

Clearly states it submits a claim and returns a signed verdict against external ground truth, with specific outcomes. Distinct from sibling tools (distress_score, file_dispute, screen_entity, verify_receipt) which handle different functions.

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?

Mentions free tier with no account needed, guiding when to use. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but sibling tools are clearly different in purpose.

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