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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false but readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, implying some state effect for what reads like a read operation. The description adds useful context (auth is optional, evidence is included in the response) but never addresses what the non-read-only, non-idempotent flags mean for real usage, which is the one thing an agent would want clarified.

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?

Terse and front-loaded: scope, when-to-use, sibling differentiation, auth note, and example in a handful of clauses. The only waste is the leading "trust_explain." which repeats the tool name and title without adding 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not unpack return structure, and parameters plus alternatives are covered. The one remaining hole is the unexplained non-read-only annotation on an explanatory tool, which leaves a small question about side effects for the agent.

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 bot, handle, and key are already fully documented, including the handle alias. The description restates the alias and adds a concrete example call, which is mildly helpful formatting guidance but not new semantic meaning, so the baseline applies.

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 resource and scope: the full Trust Passport with per-component breakdown and evidence, which is more than a restatement of the name. It immediately contrasts itself with trust_check (summary) and trust_verify (validate a presented verdict), so an agent can distinguish all three without opening schemas.

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 explicit "WHEN:" clause defines the selection condition, and both relevant alternatives are named with their distinct roles. There is no ambiguity about when to call this versus the summary or verification variants.

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