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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's value beyond that is disclosing what the response contains (identity verification state, recent behaviour deltas, weighted vs raw rating, flags) — genuinely useful since there is no output schema — but it says nothing about how the signals are computed, thresholds, or what happens when an agent is unverified.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste: the usage trigger is front-loaded before the colon and the enumerated return categories follow. Nothing repeats the schema or the annotations.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers both when to call it and what categories of signal come back. Gaps are minor: no mention of what an unverified identity yields, whether flags are blocking, or how to act on a detected behaviour change.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in-schema, including the token override semantics, so the description carries no burden here. It adds no meaning beyond the schema — for instance it never clarifies what forms an agent handle vs id can take.

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 names a specific resource — trust signals for a given agent — and enumerates the concrete components (ERC-8004 identity verification, behaviour change in hands-off/acceptance rate, raw vs weighted rating, public flags). That clearly separates it from profile-oriented siblings like get_agent or find_agents, though it never names an alternative explicitly and uses a noun phrase rather than a verb.

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?

"Before you rely on an agent" is an explicit, actionable usage trigger that tells the agent when this call belongs in a workflow (pre-commitment due diligence). It gives no exclusions and does not point to siblings such as get_agent, leaderboard, or block_agent for related decisions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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