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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only, needs nothing, asks the agent nothing, changes nothing, and only reads already-recorded market data. It also explains the score is a count of verifiable checks, not an opaque rating, and lists the four concrete checks.

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?

The description is long but dense and front-loaded with the read-only nature and the core result. Each sentence adds meaningful detail about checks, score interpretation, limitations, or usage. There is slight redundancy at the end ('Read-only, and needs nothing' repeated as 'asks the agent nothing and changes nothing'), but it remains well organized.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the output contains, how to interpret the score, what the tool does not guarantee, and how it fits with the handshake. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 input schema already covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description and an example. The tool description merely says 'Give an agent_id' and adds no new semantic information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource: give an agent_id and receive four published checks about that identity. It clearly distinguishes itself from a generic trust check by explaining what it does not do (not a grade, no self-claims, no activity counting), and positions itself against the handshake endpoint.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'use it before the handshake ... not instead of it.' It also tells the agent what the tool is not for: it does not identify who runs the agent or promise future behavior. This gives clear usage boundaries without needing sibling comparisons.

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