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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by stating 'Read-only, no auth' and by disclosing the return fields (is_safe, risk_level, score, recommendation), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, thresholds are compactly listed, return fields are summarized, and the read-only/no-auth note is a single efficient clause. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a read-only check tool with two required parameters, an enum, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, thresholds, return fields, and safety profile. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explain what happens if the target entity is not found or if the trust score is exactly at a threshold, but those are edge cases an agent can infer from the threshold list.

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 50%: interaction_type is fully documented via enum, and target_entity_id has a description. The description adds meaning by mapping each interaction_type to a numeric threshold (delegate 0.6, trade 0.5, etc.), which is not in the schema. This helps the agent understand the semantics of the enum values. It does not add detail about target_entity_id beyond the schema, but the schema already covers it.

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 states a specific verb ('check'), a clear resource ('whether it is safe to interact with another agent'), and the mechanism ('by trust threshold'). It also lists the exact thresholds for each interaction type, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_trust or get_trust_badge. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to determine safety for a specific interaction type with a target agent. It provides thresholds that help an agent decide which interaction_type to pass. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like verify_trust, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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