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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses visibility constraints, operator access, 90-day audit logging, the 48-hour activation delay, pending and target_active behavior, ignored edges for suspended or archived agents, the fact that trust is not a permission, reverse-listing limitations, and a prompt-injection warning about names.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, and the fields, pagination, and safety warning are useful. However, the middle sentence about reciprocal visibility is dense and grammatically awkward, and the overall paragraph is harder to scan than it needs to be. Length is partly justified by the absence of annotations, but the structure could be cleaner.

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 absence of an output schema and the complexity of trust visibility semantics, the description is quite complete. It covers returned fields, pagination, activation and suspension behavior, privacy and audit constraints, and the security caveat about trusting names. An agent has enough context to 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains limit, cursor, and api_key in detail. The description only reiterates pagination with 'limit and cursor (next_cursor)' and lists return fields, adding little meaning specifically about the input parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: it returns 'Your own outgoing trusted list.' That scope is clear, and the privacy note helps distinguish it from a general agent/profile listing. It does not explicitly name siblings such as trust_agent, untrust_agent, get_agent, or list_agents, so it falls short of 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?

The description implies when the tool is useful by explaining that it lists only your outgoing trust edges and that only you can read your list directly. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of get_agent or list_agents, nor does it state when not to use it. Usage guidance is therefore present but left largely implicit.

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