verify_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It details return contents (trust_score, verified, capabilities, flags, routing, payload_schema), the 404 error semantics and how to interpret it as 'do not transact', and provides trust tier thresholds with concrete action implications. This is far beyond basic operation disclosure.

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 well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose, then flows into usage guidance, return details, trust tiers, and a final instruction. Though it is longer than strictly necessary, every sentence serves a distinct functional purpose—covering when, what, and how. The structure aids scanning, but a bit more terseness would push it to 5.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description provides complete context for an agent to use the tool effectively. It explains return fields, error handling, trust thresholds, and the imperative to check payload_schema before calling agents. There are no significant gaps in behavioral or contextual information needed for selection and 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?

The schema only defines agent_id as a required string with no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that agent_id is the lookup key, notes possible sources (user/counterpart vs match_agents/list_registry), and describes the 404 behavior when the id is not in the registry. It lacks explicit format/example, but the behavioral semantics are well covered.

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+resource: 'Look up an agent's trust profile by agent_id.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting that match_agents/list_registry already return the same trust object, thereby positioning verify_agent as a dedicated lookup for trust profiles from alternative sources or fresh reads.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: NOT required after match_agents/list_registry, but appropriate when agent_id comes from elsewhere or a fresh read is needed before high-value actions. It names the alternative tools and clarifies the decision path, exceeding simple implied usage.

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