trust_agent_attestation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses read-only/advisory semantics, an explicit non-guarantee caveat, the price ($0.02 USDC on Base), the 402 quote flow, the exact validation criteria the server enforces (scheme, network, USDC, Steward payee), automatic settlement, spend-cap refusal behavior, and that the payer key stays local. This is far beyond what a name or schema conveys.

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?

Purpose and the sibling routing are front-loaded, which is the right ordering for a selection decision. The payment-mechanics sentence is long, but every clause (quote validation, caps, key custody) is material given the absence of annotations, so it earns its space despite the density.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description sketches return content well by naming the two signal classes (verification status, on-rail payment history). What is thinner is the shape of a returned attestation (fields, confidence, staleness), which an agent would have to discover empirically. For a 2-param read tool with full schema coverage, this is nearly complete.

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 both `agent` and `operator_domain` are already documented with formats and length bounds. The description restates the identifier concept ('given wallet or identifier') but adds no syntax or cross-check detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific resource ('attestation signals for an agent') and enumerates the signal types: operator verification status plus observed on-rail payment history. It explicitly names the siblings it is not (trust_verify_status for domains, trust_screen for pre-payment), so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing conditions: 'For domains use trust_verify_status; for a pre-payment decision use trust_screen.' It also frames the tool's role as advisory/read-only signals rather than a decision, which further scopes when to reach for it. Nothing is left to inference.

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