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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes well beyond them: return shape (0-1 score with confidence weight), the 'unknown' band semantics, the advisory-only non-control status, and the conditional `ladder` field sourced from the same field the tool gate reads. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a read tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and return shape, then the disclaimers. Dense but every clause carries information (scope, advisory status, unknown semantics, ladder behavior). Slightly over-packed with negation clauses, keeping it from a 5.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so: score range, confidence weight, 'unknown' band, and the conditional `ladder`. For a single-param read tool with annotations covering safety, nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it is missing.

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% and the single `subject` param is documented there, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning: the subject can be a wallet address OR a platform identity (agent id, agent name, username), and that distinction changes the response (it triggers the `ladder` field). That extra conditional behavior lifts it above baseline.

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 and resource ('Get a normalized, provider-agnostic trust signal for a wallet address or agent identifier') and immediately names what it is not (compliance/sanctions control, MCP tool-access tier). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_trust_ladder and the _meta.trust_level field, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context: advisory-only input to agent decisions alongside technical and sentiment signals, explicitly not a settlement/compliance control, and 'unknown' means no data rather than untrustworthy. It also tells the agent when the `ladder` field will appear (subject names a platform identity). It stops short of an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-sibling directive, but the framing is strong enough that 4 is warranted.

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