About KYA Brasil

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

Annotations cover read-only, idempotent, and non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is already handled. The description still adds real context beyond them: 'Free' (no cost/quota concern) and 'offline' (no network dependency), which are not derivable from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint and matter for an agent deciding whether it can call this in a constrained environment.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the two most decision-relevant facts ('Free and offline'), then the content inventory. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema documentation tool, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent what topics the payload covers and that access is free and offline. A brief note on the return format (structured JSON vs. prose/markdown) would close the remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, which is appropriate here.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool delivers: what KYA Brasil is, how an agent obtains a credential, which sibling tools serve a verifier, and where the spec and issuer keys live. That content list distinguishes it from the verify/check/revocation siblings, which all perform operations rather than explain them. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns documentation about...'), but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

'Free and offline' plus the mention of 'which tools to use as a verifier' implies this is the onboarding/orientation entry point, but the description never states when to call it (e.g. 'call this first', 'use before choosing a verify tool'). Usage is inferable rather than explicit, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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