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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses critical behavioral details: each fact carries a source URL and confirmation status, the empty-list behavior instructs the agent not to invent claims, and the cost is FREE with no AI credits. It also explains the provenance and verification model. These traits are not inferable from the annotations alone and materially change how an agent uses the tool.

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 dense, four-sentence block where every sentence adds a distinct piece of information: what the facts are, their attributes, the empty-list behavior with a fallback path, and cost. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids redundancy. Despite its length, it is appropriately sized because each sentence earns its place for a tool with significant behavioral nuance.

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 simple schema (one optional parameter), rich annotations, and an output schema that presumably defines the return format, the description covers all external context an agent needs: the content and provenance of facts, the empty-list policy, how to escalate for more facts, and cost implications. It also distinguishes itself from related tools like confirm_trust_fact and get_trust_entities via the Settings indication and read-only stance. Nothing critical 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?

The only parameter, user_intent, is already fully documented in the input schema with its purpose, optionality, and usage. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the schema carries the entire burden. This aligns with the baseline of 3 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 defines the resource as the workspace's TRUST PROFILE and specifies the verb 'get' through its name, while elaborating on the content of the facts (credentials, years of experience, etc.) and their provenance. It distinguishes itself from mutation siblings by stating that adding/confirming happens in Settings, never through chat, which routes the agent away from get_trust_facts for write operations. This is a precise statement of what the tool does and what it is not for.

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 gives explicit usage context: when the list is empty the agent must write around trust claims rather than invent them, and if stronger E-E-A-T content is desired, the agent should direct the user to Settings → Agent → Trust Profile. It also explicitly excludes modifying trust facts through chat, providing a clear boundary relative to the confirm_trust_fact sibling. This is strong when/when-not guidance with an actionable alternative.

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