An agent's record

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world profile. The description adds real behavioral context on top: the exact content returned (rank, evidence, bindings, 25 newest payments) and the failure mode for unranked ids, which an agent needs to interpret an empty response correctly.

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 resource and its contents, then the failure condition. Tight overall, though the closing 'to sell or show' is stylistic flourish rather than actionable information.

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?

With an output schema present, the description is not obligated to explain return values, and it still summarizes the payload plus the not-found case. Annotations carry the safety profile, so nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 the single id parameter already documents accepted forms (token id, slug, wallet address). The description supplies an additional constraint the schema does not encode: the id must correspond to a ranked agent, otherwise the call returns not found.

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 names a specific resource with a precise scope: one ranked agent's rank with evidence, bindings, and its 25 newest payments with counterparties. The 'free' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from paid siblings like evidence_pack_quote, but no sibling is named outright, so differentiation is left partly to inference.

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 rather than stated: it tells you the tool returns 'not found' for unranked ids, which implicitly tells an agent when this call will succeed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over find_agent, agent_statement, or evidence_pack_quote.

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