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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds rich behavioral detail: the attestation is on Base/EAS, unidirectional, originates from the embedded wallet, and identical active attestations 'are returned without a new transaction.' The prerequisites (API key, signer enrollment, gas) also disclose what is needed for the call to succeed, going well beyond the structured hints.

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 efficient sentences: the core purpose in the first, idempotency behavior in the second, and prerequisites in the third. Every sentence contributes essential information with no filler.

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?

The description covers the key behavioral aspects and prerequisites, and the schema fully documents parameters. The only gap is that with no output schema, the exact response for a newly created attestation is not explicitly described, though the idempotent-return phrase implies returned attestation data. Overall, the description is largely complete.

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% and each parameter has a meaningful description (e.g., 'Identity to trust', 'Trust level 1–100'). The description itself adds no direct parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a unidirectional trust attestation on Base (EAS)'. It also specifies the source (API key owner embedded wallet) and target (wallet or social identity), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like connect_trust_revoke and connect_trust_check.

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 clear operational context by stating prerequisites: 'Requires CONNECT_API_KEY, Smart Send attestation signer enrolled, and ETH on Base for gas.' It also notes the idempotent behavior for identical active attestations. However, it does not explicitly name when to use this over alternatives, though sibling names make that inference straightforward.

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