check_attestation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; description adds useful context beyond that: free of charge, no api_key, no gas, on-chain via EAS, and specifies the returned fields (attester, recipient, verdict, revoked status). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences and front-loaded with the primary action. The final sentence ('This is how any protocol or agent trusts...') is slightly promotional but adds usage context. Overall concise with minimal 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the network/cost context. It lacks error-handling details, but that is not essential given low complexity. Good enough to select and invoke.

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 the single parameter 'uid' is already well documented. The description does not add significant extra meaning for the parameter beyond implying it references a numguard attestation, which is aligned with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the specific action ('Look up a numguard verification credential on-chain via EAS on Base'), identifies the resource and method, and distinguishes itself from sibling verify_* tools by focusing on EAS attestation lookup. The value proposition is explicit, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use: 'This is how any protocol or agent trusts a numguard track record.' However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or which sibling tool to prefer.

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