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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. Beyond that it adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the signature scheme, the issuer DID, the offline verification key location, and an explicit scope disclaimer ('does not attest that the profile's claims are true') that prevents an agent from over-trusting the credential.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler: what the credential is, how to verify it, and the trust limitation. The most decision-relevant information (the credential type and issuer) is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description does an unusually good job describing the shape and trust properties of the returned credential. The remaining gap is behavioral edge cases (e.g. what happens for an unregistered or unverified domain) and no routing guidance among the proof-related siblings.

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% with a single documented 'domain' parameter (maxLength 253, example given), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description contributes nothing about the domain argument, so the baseline 3 applies rather than a higher score.

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 specifies the exact artifact returned: a W3C Verifiable Credential (eddsa-jcs-2022, issuer did:web:humancollab.si) attesting domain proof plus signed profile version. That level of specificity clearly distinguishes it from the proof-oriented siblings like get_consistency_proof and get_inclusion_proof, although the description never states the verb 'return' explicitly and relies on the name to convey retrieval.

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?

It gives downstream usage instruction ('Verify it offline with the key in https://humancollab.si/.well-known/did.json'), which implies the scenario where this tool is chosen. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_business, get_consistency_proof, or get_inclusion_proof, and offers no prerequisites or exclusions, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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