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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world traits, so the bar is lower; the description nonetheless adds real context beyond them – the 'degraded read is unknown' failure mode, no-API-key auth, the x-credit-token prepaid header, and per-call pricing. It does not describe rate limits beyond the free daily quota, but the added operational detail is substantive.

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 identity framing is front-loaded and useful, but the description is padded with redundant restatements ('the identity half of agent trust' then 'the identity leg') and boilerplate like 'Not financial advice'. Sizable, and some sentences do not earn their place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and this single-parameter read tool is fully described: purpose, sources, verdicts, failure mode, auth, and pricing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 there is a single required 'agent' parameter, so the schema already documents the input fully. The description only restates 'Required input: agent' without adding format or constraint semantics, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (resolves) and resource (a wallet's onchain identity), enumerating the sources checked (Coinbase verification, Basename, ERC-8004 registry) and the resulting verdicts. It also explicitly distinguishes its role from the sibling tools x402-seller-check and agent-reputation, so an agent can place it without opening either schema.

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?

Clearly situates the tool as the 'identity leg' alongside x402-seller-check (endpoint) and agent-reputation (behaviour), which routes the agent to the right sibling by scope. It gives clear context but stops short of explicit when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites beyond the required input.

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