verify_agent

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: returns trust_score, verified status, capabilities, flags, routing info, payload_schema, and 404 error handling. No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

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?

Concise and well-structured: opens with the main purpose, then lists return fields, error handling, trust tiers, and usage advice without superfluous text.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no nested objects), the description covers purpose, usage, return details, error handling, and trust tiers completely. No gaps for effective use.

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 single parameter agent_id is obvious from context; the description mentions it in context of lookup. Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds minimal extra meaning. However, for a simple string ID, this is sufficient.

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 clearly states the verb 'Look up' and the resource 'agent's trust profile', distinguishing it from sibling tools like call_agent or register_agent. It focuses on a specific pre-transaction check.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Use this before every transaction with an unknown counterpart' and provides actionable trust tiers with conditions for transacting (e.g., not trusted, caution, trusted). Also advises checking payload_schema before calling an agent.

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