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

Annotations already carry the safety profile, yet the description still adds genuinely useful context: 'Auth optional' tells the agent the key parameter can be omitted, and the parenthetical lists the four returned fields. The one undisclosed behavior is that annotations mark this as non-read-only and non-idempotent, while the description frames it purely as a summary read — an agent would not learn that the call may have side effects.

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 definition is short, front-loaded with the WHEN clause, and every sentence carries routing or calling information. The only waste is the leading 'trust_check.' that simply restates the tool name.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no prose, and the description still covers purpose, routing, auth, and an example call. It is nearly complete for a three-parameter tool; the only gap is the mismatch between the 'summary' framing and the non-read-only, non-idempotent annotations.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description's note that 'handle is accepted as an alias' merely repeats the schema's own alias wording. 'Auth optional' adds a small amount of meaning about the key parameter, and the example shows a valid minimal call, but this stays at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 names the concrete artifact returned ('quick Trust Passport summary (score/tier/digest/signature)') and explicitly contrasts it with the sibling trust_explain ('full per-component evidence'). An agent can tell these two apart without opening either schema, which is exactly what purpose clarity requires.

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?

It gives an explicit WHEN clause ('quick Trust Passport summary') and a routing rule ('use check first, explain for receipts') that names the alternative and the condition selecting it. There is no ambiguity about which of the two trust tools to call first.

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