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 description doesn't need to restate those. It adds valuable context by explaining that the score reflects discipline, sizing, journaling, drawdown control, and explicitly states it is 'not a verdict,' which clarifies the tool's interpretive nature beyond what annotations provide.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word adds meaning, with no fluff or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what contributes to the score, and the tone of the result. The absence of an output schema is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the description's clarity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output and purpose rather than parameter syntax.

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 identifies the tool's function: providing the user's Trust Score and the factors that comprise it. It uses a specific resource ('Trust Score') and clarifies it's a read of behavior, not a verdict, distinguishing it from other get_my_* tools.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you want insight into your Trust Score and its components), but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_my_journal_stats or get_my_briefing. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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