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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this while adding 'Read-only, no auth' plus output fields such as is_safe, risk_level, score, and recommendation. This is useful context beyond the structured data. It does not discuss openWorldHint implications or error behavior, but the core behavioral profile is well covered.

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 four short sentences, all information-bearing: purpose, thresholds, return fields, and read-only/auth status. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains zero filler or repetition.

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 simple 2-parameter read-only check with no output schema, the description covers what it checks, thresholds, returned fields, and auth requirements. It does not describe unknown-entity errors or when to choose alternatives, but those gaps are minor since the schema already points to lookup_identity for resolving target_entity_id.

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 description maps each interaction_type enum value to a specific threshold (delegate 0.6, trade 0.5, collaborate 0.4, follow 0.1), which the schema's bare enum does not provide. This adds real semantic meaning for the primary parameter. The target_entity_id semantics are left to the schema, but the description partially compensates for the 50% coverage gap.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Check whether it is safe to interact with another agent by trust threshold.' It specifies interaction types and threshold values, which gives concrete meaning. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like verify_trust or get_trust_badge, but the behavior is specific enough to be distinct.

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 about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as verify_trust or get_trust_badge. The threshold list implies contexts for delegate/trade/collaborate/follow, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative routing instructions. An agent must infer when this check is the right choice.

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