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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers rich behavioral context: it distinguishes CLAIMED from PROVEN, defines receiptsProven as chain-confirmed, explains that unconfirmed receipts prove nothing, describes AP2 alignment for verification, and clarifies owner vs. stranger visibility. It even addresses the edge case that 'zero is zero, never a placeholder.' This goes well beyond a basic read operation.

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 description is front-loaded with the purpose and use case, then adds precisely the behavioral nuances an agent needs (proof semantics, AP2 alignment, visibility, zero handling). Every sentence conveys a distinct, non-redundant fact; nothing is wasted.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description tells an agent exactly what the response will contain and how to interpret it. It covers the return fields, proof semantics, verification compatibility, access control, and numeric edge cases. An agent has everything needed to call this tool and interpret the result correctly.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description's statement about owner/public visibility mirrors what the userId property already says ('Owner sees the full record; others only a public one'). Thus the description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read an agent's track record') and enumerates the concrete content returned (mandates, executions, refusals, receipts). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like ava_get_receipt (single receipt) and ava_list_mandates (list of mandates) because it frames the output as an agent-level record with proof standing.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'before delegating capital to it.' This is a clear contextual trigger. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is specific enough to guide an agent toward this tool rather than similar lookup tools.

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