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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is free, unauthenticated, not wallet-scoped, and returns the attestation with its signature. It also discloses that no individual reply is given for feedback, which is a minor behavioral note. No contradiction with annotations.

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 core tool behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the rest adds useful context about scope and feedback routing. The feedback sentence is somewhat tangential to the tool's operation, but it is brief and does not obscure the main purpose. Overall efficient.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It explains the return value (attestation with signature), the access model (free, unauthenticated, not wallet-scoped), and the relationship to attest_create. The only minor gap is not describing the exact response format, but no output schema exists and the description gives enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter. The description adds that the id is the one returned by attest_create, which is useful but not a major semantic addition beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('read'), a specific resource ('attestation'), and the retrieval key ('by id'), and explicitly contrasts itself with attest_create. It also clarifies the non-wallet-scoped nature, which distinguishes it from any wallet-scoped read siblings. This is a clear, specific purpose statement.

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 explicitly says this is how attestations created via attest_create come back over MCP, and deliberately not wallet-scoped, so a third party can fetch and verify. It also mentions the alternative for feedback (POST /feedback). This gives clear when-to-use guidance and even routes non-tool requests elsewhere.

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