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 valuable behavioral context: the return format (0-1 score with confidence weight), the 'unknown' band semantics, and the crucial interpretation that 'unknown' means no data, NOT untrustworthy. This goes beyond the 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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, how to interpret it, when to use it, and a critical caveat. The most important information (normalized score, 0-1, confidence) is front-loaded. No fluff 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 single-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is complete. It explains the return value semantics, the 'unknown' band, and the advisory-only nature. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 parameter 'subject' is described as 'Wallet address or agent identifier to score'. The description reinforces this by mentioning 'wallet address or agent identifier' in the first sentence, but doesn't add new syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get'), a resource ('normalized, provider-agnostic trust signal'), and the target ('wallet address or agent identifier'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_trust_ladder and who_is_this by emphasizing the normalized 0-1 score and advisory nature.

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 explicitly frames when to use it: as an optional input to agent decisions alongside technical and sentiment signals. It also states exclusions: never a compliance, sanctions, or settlement control. This gives clear guidance on when not to rely on it.

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