trust_verify_status

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 declares read-only/advisory behavior, states that verification is never issued or purchasable here, and discloses the payment mechanics end-to-end ($0.01 USDC on Base, 402 quote, exact scheme/network/token/payee validation, per-call and daily spend caps, automatic wallet settlement, payer key never leaves the machine).

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 purpose and routing before the lengthy payment paragraph. Every sentence is substantive, though the payment/settlement passage is dense enough that it could be tightened slightly without losing meaning.

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 names the four returned fields, so return semantics are covered. Combined with the safety, cost and routing disclosure, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents format, length bounds and auto-lowercasing. The description references the domain concept but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check whether a domain is Steward Verified') and enumerates the returned fields (status, method, issuance/expiry, endpoint count). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from two siblings by name, 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 when-to-use ('before trusting a merchant domain') and names the correct alternatives with their selecting conditions: trust_agent_attestation for agent counterparties, trust_screen for pay/no-pay decisions. This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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