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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses fail-closed behavior (UNKNOWN+DENY), the full set of response statuses with PERMIT/DENY recommendation, and the independent verifiability via Ed25519. This goes well beyond a simple purpose statement.

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 sentences with zero fluff: purpose is front-loaded, then return semantics and fail-closed behavior, then verification detail. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Covers return values, fail-closed policy, and verification. Missing guidance on parameter combinations (e.g., both card_id and kid provided, or neither) and any authentication requirements, but for a read-only check with all-optional parameters it is largely sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description additionally clarifies the role of card_id and kid (the two lookup paths) and implies nonce is for anti-replay, adding meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Check the revocation status' of an Agent Trust Card (card_id) or CA key (kid), and lists the exact statuses returned. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like marketnow_check_domain and marketnow_verify_trust, even without explicitly naming them.

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?

Usage is implied ('Check revocation status') but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as marketnow_check_domain or marketnow_verify_trust. No exclusions or 'when not to use' statements are given, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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