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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool is FREE, what specific values are returned, and the deliberate scoring policy that attestations from unknown attesters are worth zero to prevent circular vouching. This goes far beyond a generic read description.

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 organized into clear, purposeful sections: what it reads, what it returns, when to use it, and why the scoring works as it does. Every sentence adds value, including the rationale, and no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name appears.

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 the single parameter, absent annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers invocation, result interpretation, and the business context. An agent can both select this tool and call it correctly without needing additional information.

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 has 0% description coverage for the lone parameter, but the description compensates by defining accepted inputs: 'an agent name, id, or Base wallet address.' This gives an agent enough semantic grounding to correctly populate agent_or_wallet.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a concrete resource ('onchain attestations naming an AI agent's wallet on Base'), and it explains the underwriting relevance. It also lists accepted lookup forms, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from related credit or profile tools.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Check this before extending credit, prepaying, or delegating paid work to a stranger.' This clearly conveys when to use the tool, though it does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops just 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.