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

With no annotations available, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context by noting the tool is free and that it returns on-chain identity and a trust verdict, implying a read-only operation. However, it omits details about side effects, error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits, leaving notable gaps.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Look up an ERC-8004 on-chain agent') and efficiently add the key facts 'Free' and 'Returns on-chain identity + trust verdict.' Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

This is a simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, so the description's high-level summary of returns may be adequate. However, it does not specify the exact structure of the 'on-chain identity' or 'trust verdict,' nor does it address edge cases like invalid agent IDs or differentiates from sibling trust-check tools. This is a clear but incomplete picture for an agent selecting the tool.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter (erc8004_agent_id as a numeric token ID from the Identity Registry) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional information about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles the semantics.

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 clearly states the tool looks up an ERC-8004 on-chain agent and retrieves their AgentStamp trust score, with output including on-chain identity and a trust verdict. It specifies a clear verb ('look up') and resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling bridge_erc8004_trust_check, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies the tool is used for looking up ERC-8004 agent trust scores, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like bridge_erc8004_trust_check or verify_stamp. There are no stated exclusions or alternative recommendations, so it only provides implied usage context.

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

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

The description discloses that the tool is free and returns trusted/untrusted with a score, which is useful. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lacks details on side effects (e.g., is it read-only?), authentication requirements, rate limits, or any preconditions beyond the ERC-8004 agent ID. This is a minimal disclosure, not misleading but incomplete.

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 extremely concise: 'Get an AgentStamp trust verdict for an ERC-8004 agent. Free. Returns trusted/untrusted with score.' Every fragment adds value, is front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no fluff.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a high-level but sufficient summary of the purpose and expected return format. Missing details include the score's range or threshold, and possible error cases, but overall the description is reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema describes the single parameter 'erc8004_agent_id' as 'ERC-8004 agent ID (numeric token ID)', covering 100% of the parameter semantics. The description itself adds no extra context about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies as per the schema coverage criterion.

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 clearly states it gets an AgentStamp trust verdict for an ERC-8004 agent, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('AgentStamp trust verdict for an ERC-8004 agent'). It includes the output type ('trusted/untrusted with score') and distinguishes from siblings like 'trust_check' by specifying the ERC-8004 and AgentStamp context.

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?

Usage context is implied by the description naming the target (ERC-8004 agent) and the AgentStamp trust verdict, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'trust_check' or 'team_trust_check') or provide any exclusions. There are no alternative tool references or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description is minimal and does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it paginates, or how results are ordered. 'Browse' implies non-mutating behavior, but without explicit mention of permissions, side effects, or return format, the description does not sufficiently disclose behavioral traits.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no filler or redundancy and earns its place with all essential information.

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?

The tool has 3 optional parameters and no output schema. The description is adequate for a simple list/browse operation, but it does not mention what the return value looks like (e.g., a list of agent objects) or any pagination behavior. Given the sibling tools and lack of output schema, the description could be slightly more descriptive to fully contextualize the tool.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a general mention of 'optional category filter and sorting,' which aligns with the schema but does not provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 clearly states the tool's function: browsing registered agents with optional category filtering and sorting. The verb 'browse' plus the resource 'registered agents' makes the purpose unambiguous, and the mention of filtering and sorting distinguishes it from simple get or search operations.

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 indicates when to use the tool (to browse/list agents) but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like 'search_agents' or 'get_agent'. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or any other behavioral details beyond 'browse'.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. No empty filler; it's appropriately concise.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how sorting/filtering works, or any behavioral context.

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 only 33%, and the description adds no parameter information. The schema provides some constraints (sort enum, limit bounds) but the description doesn't clarify meanings like 'most_granted' or valid categories.

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 clearly states the tool browses wishes from the Wishing Well and explains the purpose of discovering AI agent capabilities. It uses a specific verb and resource, but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like browse_agents.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools for similar tasks.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behavioral outcome (returns report with specified fields) and adds that it is free, which is useful. However, it does not mention any side effects, authorization requirements, or read-only status explicitly, though 'Get' implies a safe operation. This is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences that state purpose and a notable feature (free). No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately specifies the input and the output structure by listing the returned fields. It also gives a relevant qualifier ('Free'). It could be improved by noting if any prerequisites exist, but overall it is complete for this simple tool.

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 schema already documents agent_id with a descriptive placeholder and example (100% coverage). The description adds no further parameter-specific detail, 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and names the exact resource 'EU AI Act compliance report' for a specific target 'an agent'. It also enumerates the key return fields (risk level, transparency declaration, audit summary, trust status), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like trust_check or get_agent.

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 implies clear context: it is for retrieving an EU AI Act compliance report, which is distinct from trust checks or general agent lookups. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls short of full guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the owner is auto-added as first member, a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention auth requirements (beyond the REST API note), error conditions, or return values, leaving gaps. The production note is more of a recommendation than a behavior, so the actual behavioral disclosure is limited.

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, front-loads the purpose, and provides a useful side note about the owner and a production alternative without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain return values or error behavior, but it covers purpose, a key side effect (owner auto-added), and a usage recommendation. This is reasonably complete for a simple create operation, though it could mention response details for full completeness.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds the note that the owner is auto-added, which provides slight context to the wallet_address parameter (i.e., the owner need not be listed as a member), but it doesn't significantly go beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('agent team') and adds context ('for multi-agent trust scoring'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like team_trust_check or browse_agents. It fully states what the tool does with no ambiguity.

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 explicitly states that for production use, the REST API (POST /api/v1/teams) is preferred because it requires wallet signature verification. This provides a clear alternative and when-to-use guidance, which is exactly what a good usage guideline should do.

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

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

Without annotations, the description explains the verification mechanism (checking _agentstamp.domain.com TXT record and cross-referencing the registry) and notes the tool is free. However, it does not disclose return behavior, error handling, or permission requirements, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 two-sentence description is concise and front-loaded, with the primary action in the first sentence and a secondary detail in the second. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the purpose and mechanism for this simple one-parameter tool, but it omits what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, record details). Since there is no output schema, this missing information leaves the description slightly incomplete.

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 input schema defines the single 'domain' parameter with an example, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool checks for an AgentStamp DNS TXT record for agent discovery, specifying the exact record type (_agentstamp.domain.com) and the registry cross-check. This distinguishes it from sibling tools by detailing the specific DNS verification mechanism.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_stamp or trust_check. It implies usage through its purpose but does not state conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a read operation and lists returned content (endorsements, reputation score), but does not mention potential errors, authentication requirements, or response format. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose and key outputs.

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 get-by-ID tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what it returns. No additional context is necessary.

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% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents agent_id well. The description only says 'by ID', adding no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'full agent profile by ID', and specifies that it includes endorsements and reputation score. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_agent_reputation and browse_agents.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies this is appropriate when the agent ID is known and a full profile is desired. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like get_agent_reputation or search_agents.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the score range and the breakdown dimensions of the return value, but it omits error behavior, data freshness, permissions, or what happens for unknown agents. This is a useful but limited behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the action and resource ('Get an agent's reputation score') and then appends the detail about the score range and breakdown. No unnecessary words or restatements.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description adequately covers the main purpose and return content. It lists the breakdown categories despite the lack of an output schema. It could be more explicit about return structure or error handling, but given the low complexity, it is largely 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?

The sole parameter agent_id is already documented in the schema as 'The agent ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning, format requirements, or usage hints beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as an agent's reputation score with a 0-100 range. It lists distinct breakdown components (tier, endorsements, uptime, age, wishes granted), which sets it apart from siblings like get_agent or get_leaderboard.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name related tools like trust_check or get_agent, provide exclusions, or state conditions under which this tool should be preferred.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the content returned (endorsed agents, reputation scores, newest agents, categories), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only (implicit but not stated), pagination, sorting details, or any rate limits or permissions. The description adds some value but lacks depth.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output components. Every phrase adds value without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the key output sections: top endorsed agents, reputation scores, newest agents, and category breakdown. It lacks explicit mention of ordering or pagination, but given the simple nature of the tool, it is reasonably complete. Slightly more detail would make it fully comprehensive.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter details. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It describes the output content, which is sufficient.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves an agent leaderboard, and enumerates its contents: top endorsed agents with reputation scores, newest agents, and category breakdown. This explicitly differentiates it from siblings like get_trending or browse_agents, which serve different purposes.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you want the leaderboard. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like get_trending or browse_agents, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. It provides clear context but no explicit guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context by stating the passport is 'Ed25519-signed' and lists its contents, which is useful. However, it does not cover error behavior (e.g., missing passport), response format, or any authentication requirements, leaving notable gaps.

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 compact and front-loaded: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, and the second efficiently enumerates the payload contents and signing property.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the return includes and the signing trait. It could be more complete by explicitly noting this is the composite passport fetch and directing to siblings for individual data (e.g., reputation-only use get_agent_reputation), but overall it is sufficient.

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% with the single wallet_address parameter fully documented as 'Ethereum wallet address (0x...)'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies per the rubric.

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 clearly states the tool returns a 'signed cross-protocol agent passport' and enumerates its contents (identity, stamp, reputation, A2A card, MCP metadata). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_agent_reputation or verify_stamp, which focus on individual components.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention cases where a caller should use get_agent_reputation or verify_stamp instead, nor does it describe prerequisites like requiring an existing passport for the wallet.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without detailing return format, ordering, time windows, or whether it is read-only. The term 'velocity' remains undefined.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler or redundancy. It earns its place by conveying the core purpose clearly.

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 parameterless tool, the description is minimally viable, but it lacks context on what constitutes trending, how velocity is measured, or what the response contains. This could confuse an agent expecting specific data semantics.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves trending wish categories and velocity from the Wishing Well, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like browse_wishes or search_agents, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output format and that the tool is 'Free', but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The 'get' verb implies read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two substantive sentences plus 'Free.' It front-loads the primary action and return format without fluff. Each clause contributes useful information, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose, return format, and interoperability. It does not mention any caveats, prerequisites, or error conditions, but given the simplicity and specificity of the tool, it is reasonably complete. The 'Free' note adds a minor extra context.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter 'wallet_address' with a clear description ('Agent wallet address (0x... or Solana base58)'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Get a W3C Verifiable Credential') and the resource ('for an agent'), and specifies the return format as W3C VC Data Model 2.0. It adds the interoperability detail, which helps distinguish it from potential sibling tools like 'get_passport', but it does not explicitly name or compare with alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_passport' or 'verify_stamp'. It only describes the action and output without contextual usage instructions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include reputation scores, but it does not clarify behavior when called with no query or category (schema allows it), nor does it mention rate limits, authentication, or return structure. This ambiguity is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action ('Search'), specifies the resource, and states the outcome. Every word contributes meaning with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is a simple search with optional filters, and the description covers the core purpose and result. However, it lacks details on behavior with no parameters, the exact return shape, and differentiation from sibling tools. The absence of an output schema increases the need for more descriptive completeness.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (limit, query, category) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches the AgentStamp agent directory by query and/or category, and specifies the return value (agents with reputation scores). It distinguishes from siblings like get_agent (specific agent) and browse_agents (browsing without search) through the explicit search/filter scope, though it does not name alternatives.

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 implies when to use it: when searching with a query and/or category. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools such as browse_agents for unfiltered browsing, so usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes the output structure (aggregate score, weakest-link, per-member breakdown) and the trust threshold logic (score >= 10 and 2+ members). While it does not discuss potential failure modes or operational details, it gives a clear picture of what the tool returns and its decision rule, which is sufficient for a read-only check.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: the first sentence states purpose and output, the second sentence provides the trust threshold. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key information.

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 the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and the trusted condition. It omits minor details like error behavior or interpretation of the weakest-link analysis, but these are not critical for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single `team_id` parameter with a clear description and example. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Trust verdict for a multi-agent team.' It specifies the output (aggregate trust score, weakest-link analysis, per-member breakdown) and even defines the trusted threshold. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `trust_check` or `trust_compare` by focusing specifically on team-level trust.

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 the tool (checking trust for a multi-agent team) and implies it is for team-level assessments. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as for individual trust checks via `trust_check` or comparisons via `trust_compare`. No exclusions are stated, but the context is enough for most use cases.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose an important edge case: 'Unregistered agents get trusted: false with a registration CTA.' However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only, though 'Single-call verdict' implies a safe read. Missing details on profile info scope and potential errors.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by return value and edge-case behavior. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema). The description covers the main function, return contents, and unregistered-agent behavior. It could be more complete by mentioning response format or potential errors, but for this low complexity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent 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% for wallet_address, which already explains the parameter clearly. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the 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?

The description states a clear purpose: 'Single-call trust verdict for any wallet address' and lists specific outputs (score, tier, profile info). It distinguishes itself by emphasizing 'any wallet address' and 'single-call', but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like team_trust_check or bridge_erc8004_trust_check, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Single-call' hints at a quick lookup, but there are no exclusions or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer appropriate contexts from the tool name and sibling list.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (who leads, gap, unregistered agents), but does not mention error handling, permission requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. For a simple comparison tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides essential context: what it compares, the limit, and key output details. It lacks edge-case specifics (e.g., invalid addresses) but is sufficient for this straightforward tool.

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% (the 'wallets' parameter is thoroughly described with min/max and purpose). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('trust scores of up to 5 wallets side-by-side'). It also mentions key outputs (who leads, score gap, unregistered agents), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like trust_check that likely handle single-wallet checks.

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 implies when to use this tool (when comparing multiple wallets) and specifies the limit of 5 wallets. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear for a comparison scenario.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the output scope (network-wide statistics) but does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or how the data is aggregated. The absence of annotations leaves these gaps, though the straightforward nature of a stats tool mitigates the concern.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value: the first sentence lists concrete statistics, and the second gives the functional context ('social proof'). No redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It enumerates the data fields provided and contextualizes their use. It could potentially mention whether data is live or cached, but that is not essential for a statistics tool.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying exactly what statistics are returned, which gives the agent a clear expectation of output without needing parameter explanations. It does not over-explain, and the schema coverage is trivially complete.

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 clearly identifies the tool as providing network-wide trust statistics, enumerating specific data points (total agents, stamps, endorsements, wishes, average reputation, top categories). It distinguishes itself from sibling trust tools by focusing on aggregate network metrics rather than individual trust checks or comparisons.

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 implies usage for obtaining a high-level overview of the AgentStamp network's trust profile ('social proof'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_leaderboard or trust_check. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral details, but it only says 'Verify' without explicitly stating that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or what happens for invalid/missing stamp IDs. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's function, making it appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what the verification result looks like (e.g., boolean, certificate details, error conditions), which is a gap in the absence of an output schema.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter (stamp_id) with a description and example. The description's mention of 'stamp ID' adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Verify') on a specific resource ('AgentStamp identity certificate') via a specific identifier ('stamp ID'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like trust_check or get_verifiable_credential, which focus on broader trust or credential retrieval.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what it does without contextualizing its place among the sibling tools.

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