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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the confirmation semantics ('never claim a fact is confirmed until they act') and the cost note (FREE, reads stored data, no AI credits). No contradiction with annotations; 'Render' aligns with readOnlyHint.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage, then the critical behavioral caveat, then cost. Each sentence earns its place; slightly longer than minimal but every clause adds agent-relevant 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?

Complete for a read-only rendering tool: an output schema covers return values, annotations cover safety, and the description covers purpose, empty vs non-empty states, usage context, a behavioral constraint, and cost. 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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter (user_intent) is fully documented in the schema, so the description need not add param detail. The description correctly implies the parameter is optional context only. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('Trust Profile card'), and describes exactly what the card shows (harvested-but-unconfirmed facts with Confirm buttons, or a 'Scan my site' button when empty). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_trust_facts (data retrieval) and confirm_trust_fact (user action) by being the inline UI-rendering tool.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: when the conversation touches E-E-A-T/credibility/trust, or when explaining omitted trust claims. It gives clear context but does not name alternatives or explicit when-not conditions, so an agent must infer that get_trust_facts/confirm_trust_fact serve different steps.

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