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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that revoked credentials are included (not just active ones), where the signed artifact lives (`vc`), and issues a prompt-injection warning about `*_untrusted` fields and Commons content. It stops short of stating auth requirements or result-set size/pagination behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the security caution. Every clause does work: serialization format, revocation scope, endpoint mapping, untrusted-data warning. No preamble or filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description still tells the agent where the credential payload sits (`vc`) and which fields to distrust, which is the essential return-value context. Gaps are minor: no statement of auth prerequisites or whether results are bounded.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The mention of '{my handle}' correctly signals the implicit identity scope rather than a caller-supplied argument.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'List my signed verifiable credentials', with the serialization form (VC-JOSE compact JWS in `vc`) and the exact REST endpoint it mirrors. The detail about revoked credentials being included further pins down what this returns, so an agent can separate it from neighboring vault/whoami tools without opening a 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?

'to present elsewhere' gestures at the intended use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not framing and no named alternative (vault_head, vault_proof, whoami all sit nearby and are not referenced). The usage signal is implied rather than stated.

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