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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses cost ('Free'), that only measured signals are returned, and — importantly — that an empty list means 'nothing measured', not a clean bill of health. It stops short of stating read-only nature explicitly, auth requirements, or rate limits.

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 fragments, front-loaded with cost and then the flag enumeration; nothing is padded. The telegraphic style (leading 'Free.', dashes, slashes) trades a little readability for density, but every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the key semantic risk (interpreting empty results) and the relationship to trust_check. The missing piece is the identifier parameter, which is the only gap for an agent trying to invoke it 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?

The single required parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it — an agent gets no confirmation that this is the agent's aix_ identifier from the prose. The regex pattern in the schema is the only hint, which is a clear compensation gap at this coverage level.

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 ('get an agent's trust flags') and enumerates exactly which flags are returned (liveness_down, escrow dispute_open/dispute_upheld), so scope is unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from trust_check, which carries the signed copy — a genuine sibling differentiation, though not a full 'use this instead of that' framing.

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?

'Free' plus the note that the SIGNED copy rides inside trust_check implies the trade-off (cheap unsigned read vs. the signed verdict), but the description never states when to prefer this tool over trust_check or get_agent_record. The usage contrast is inferable rather than explicit.

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