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

Since there are no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool produces evidence, not a persisted verdict, and explicitly states 'no profile poisoning.' It also exposes the output semantics (range 0–100, null condition) and how the score is computed, which is strong value beyond the schema.

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 efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose, then details outputs and side-effect behavior. It is slightly longer than minimal but every sentence provides meaningful context; no filler or redundancy is present beyond minor overlap between the second and third sentences.

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 that there is no output schema, the description effectively explains the return values: neighbour counts, mean/min trust, adversary count, and derived.halo_score formula with null behavior. It also clears side-effect ambiguity. It lacks error-case or prerequisite details, but for a single-parameter scoring tool this is reasonably complete.

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 single parameter entity_slug is well-documented in the schema ('Stable kebab-case entity identifier'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds little beyond referring to 'an entity's company,' but the schema is sufficient, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Scores an entity by the trust character of its neighbours' and specifies the scope (SSPs publishers sell through, DSPs it buys through). It also differentiates from generic scoring tools by defining the halo_score concept and its outputs.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sigil_score_entity or signal_dark_pool_risk. The usage context is only implied by the unique halo-score concept, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative references are provided.

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