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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it is a live network call, can report a non-answering endpoint, and returns evidence including a reach counter. It also clarifies that it is not a registry read, which changes expectations about freshness. No contradiction 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?

Two concise, information-dense sentences. The action is front-loaded, and the critical distinction (live vs registry) appears early. 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?

For a read-only verification tool with full parameter documentation and annotations covering safety, the description fully explains what is returned (hireability tier, evidence, reach count) and the behavioral nuance (live handshake). Nothing an agent needs to call it 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 coverage is 100% for both chainId and tokenId with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any extra parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 specific verb-resource pair: live-call an agent's endpoint. It explicitly distinguishes itself from a registry read, which sets it apart from sibling tools like find_agents or uptime_history. The purpose is 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 implies when to use it (when you need live verification rather than registry data) by contrasting it with registry reading, but it does not name explicit alternatives or exclude conditions. It lacks a direct 'use this instead of X' but gives enough contextual signal.

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