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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent profile, and the description layers on genuinely non-obvious behavior: the shared 30/min per-IP REST limit, the explicit set of withheld fields, and a prompt-injection warning that returned text is untrusted data, never instructions. That last point is safety-critical context no annotation conveys.

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 tight sentences: identity and resource first, then limits/exclusions, then the safety note. Nothing redundant, and the most important constraint is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description doesn't describe the summary's actual shape (fields, counts, verdicts), so return-value understanding is partial. It does, however, fully cover access limits, excluded data, and response trustworthiness, which is adequate for a single-parameter read tool.

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 0% and the anyOf (integer | slug pattern) only gives structure, not meaning. The description compensates by explaining the parameter accepts 'numeric ID or stable slug', so the agent understands both accepted forms of identity.

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 verb+resource: a public, DB-derived agent trust summary retrieved by ID or slug. The word 'summary' plus the exclusion list ('no private identities, reports, reasons, scores or financial details') implicitly distinguishes it from get_agent's fuller profile, though no sibling is named.

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 usage (check trust before acting on an agent) and enumerates what is NOT returned, which helps scope expectations. But it never states when to prefer this over get_agent or list_agents, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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