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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly discloses the return includes a score (0-100), trust band, and trend, which informs the agent about the structure of the response. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, but the verb 'Read' implies no destructive action. The description adds value beyond the schema by detailing the output components.

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 a single, focused sentence that conveys the exact purpose and output without redundancy. Every word is relevant and valuable.

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?

Given the tool has only 1 required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly. The sibling tools like 'explain_rating' may offer alternative explanations, but the description's clarity on the public nature and output format makes it complete for this simple 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?

The schema has 1 parameter with 100% coverage via its description, so baseline is 3. The description adds that the slug is for a 'registered organization' and provides an example ('acme'), giving context about what a slug represents and its format. This adds value beyond the schema's description alone.

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 clearly specifies the verb 'Read', the resource 'public Obelisk Rating', and distinguishes from siblings like 'explain_rating' which likely explains the rating rather than reading it. The mention of 'public' also differentiates it from tools like 'gate_status' or 'scan_trust' which may involve private or scanning operations.

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 states that this is for reading a *public* rating for a *registered* organization by its slug. It does not mention when not to use it, but the context of 'public' implies it is for general queries, and siblings like 'explain_rating' may be alternatives for explanation. No explicit exclusions are provided, but the clarity of the public nature and requirement of a slug provides good context.

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