vouchtrail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only retrieval of verdict and evidence but does not mention error behavior (e.g., not found), permissions, or whether it returns only published evidence (which is implied but not explicit). The description lacks transparency about side effects or data scope beyond 'full verdict and published evidence.'

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 concise sentence (9 words) that front-loads the core outcome ('Full verdict and published evidence') and then specifies the input. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basics: what is returned and how to identify the subject. However, it lacks details on the structure of the verdict/evidence, what 'published' means, or error cases, so it is not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that the id is numeric and used to identify a subject, which clarifies the schema's bare 'id' property. However, it does not specify what 'subject' refers to (e.g., service? person?), leaving some ambiguity.

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 states that the tool returns the full verdict and published evidence for a subject identified by numeric id. It distinguishes from siblings like get_verdict (likely partial) and search_services (search vs. direct retrieval), though it could be more explicit about the tool's scope.

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 that this tool is for retrieving a complete verdict and evidence when you have the numeric id, as opposed to searching (search_services) or getting just the verdict (get_verdict). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It lists return elements (per-dimension scores, confidence, independent-voice count, evidence) which gives some insight into behavior, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, or any rate limits or dependencies. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then a compact list of return values. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description provides a solid overview of purpose and outputs, but lacks parameter explanations, usage alternatives, and behavioral notes. Given no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 description coverage is low (40%) with only 'subject' and 'min_evidence_tier' described. The description does not compensate for the other parameters (min_reviewer_karma, max_staleness_hours, require_human_linked) and adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

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+resource: 'Evidence-backed trust verdict for an agent service before you transact.' It clearly explains what the tool does (returns a verdict) and distinguishes itself from siblings (get_service, search_services) by focusing on trust assessment rather than service discovery or details.

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 phrase 'before you transact' provides clear usage context, implying you should call this to assess trust before a transaction. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it falls short of fully explicit guidelines.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It indicates a read-only search operation and mentions filtering and sorting, which is transparent enough for a safe operation. However, it does not disclose details like result format or pagination.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and covers the key aspects (search, filter, sort) with no redundant words.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains the operation and parameter roles, but it does not mention the return format or provide context on related tools, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must explain the parameters. It does: 'by name/URL' maps to q, 'filter by kind' maps to kind, and 'sort' maps to sort. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types and enums.

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 states the tool's purpose: searching a directory of reviewed agent services by name/URL, with filtering and sorting. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like get_service and get_verdict.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description only explains what the tool does, not when to choose it over get_service or get_verdict, or any exclusions.

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