Get one agent's record

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real value beyond them: it discloses provenance/freshness ('Every answer says when it was read and where from') and that owner statements are attributed as the owner's own words rather than presented as fact.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource, then the returned fields, then the framing caveat. The long first sentence is dense but every clause names a distinct piece of returned data; the two short trailing sentences are efficient. Little waste.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so by enumerating the record's fields plus read-time and source metadata. Combined with a fully documented input schema, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the tool; only the relationship to sibling tools is left implicit.

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% and all three parameters (including both enums) are documented in the schema, including the conditional Solana-only 'registry' behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('What Nooscape has on record about one agent') and enumerates the concrete contents of the record (first/last seen, registrar, evidence level, shared-wallet count, registry activity, ratings, owner claims). The 'one agent' framing and 'Not a review and not a verdict' separate it from a search or an evaluative tool, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Not a review and not a verdict' implies an exclusion (use a review/verdict tool such as check instead), but the alternative is never named and no positive when-to-use condition is stated. Usage is only inferable from the singular 'one agent' framing.

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