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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It reveals that results are timestamped observations and summaries, and explicitly disclaims a universal verdict. It does not mention not-found behavior or output format, but the read-only lookup nature is clear from 'look up' and 'returns'.

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?

Two tight sentences: purpose first, then return value and boundary condition. Every sentence adds necessary information and there is no redundancy.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, what it does not return, and the input predicate. It omits details like endpoint format and empty-result behavior, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can invoke it correctly from this definition.

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 0%, so the description must supply endpoint semantics. It does, by stating the endpoint is the exact service endpoint used as the lookup key. No format/example is given, which is a minor gap, but the core meaning is communicated.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('look up'), a specific resource ('Atinamos verification evidence'), and a precise scope ('exact service endpoint'). It also actively distinguishes itself from policy evaluation by stating the tool does not return a universal trust or safety verdict.

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 'exact service endpoint' phrasing tells the agent this is the precise-match lookup, implicitly reserving search_services for discovery/fuzzy queries. The 'does not return a universal trust or safety verdict' sentence is a clear exclusion for verdict-type tasks, though it stops short of naming which sibling to use instead.

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