erc8004_get_validation_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying the types of validation (zkML, TEE, stake-secured). However, it does not disclose potential behaviors like error handling, response format, or prerequisites. 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?

Single sentence, 20 words, no redundancy. Essential information is front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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, the description provides the necessary context (validation registry and types). However, without an output schema, it could benefit from mentioning what the response contains (e.g., boolean, status enum) or common error scenarios.

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 agentId. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema's description. Baseline 3 applies as the schema already documents the parameter clearly.

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 what the tool does: 'Check the validation status of an ERC-8004 agent from the Validation Registry'. It specifies the resource and the context (zkML, TEE, stake-secured). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_agent or get_agent_stats, 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention when to prefer this over, e.g., get_agent for validation details or evaluate_agent_trust for trust assessment. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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