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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by stating 'Read-only, no auth' and 'unknown ids return guidance, not an error,' which are not in annotations. It also specifies the exact return shape, aiding agent expectations.

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?

Four short sentences with no redundancy. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by return values, safety, and usage. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensating by listing trust_score, trust_score_pct, trust_tier, and threshold result is valuable. Combined with annotations covering safety and schema covering inputs, the agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly.

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%: both entity_id and min_trust have descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds a minor cue that min_trust is a threshold ('whether it meets a minimum threshold'), but this is already inferable from the schema's 'Min score, 0-1.'

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 and resource: 'Verify an AgentAvow entity's trust score' and enumerates the return fields, making the core function unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_trust_badge, so it stops short of a full 5.

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 a clear use case: 'Use before interacting with an unknown agent,' and the entity_id schema hints to resolve via lookup_identity. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like check_interaction_safety or get_trust_badge.

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