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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals that results separate registry claims from observed outcomes, never merges them, and includes a concrete metric (92.9% healthy, 33.9% complete task). This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context beyond basic search functionality.

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 tightly written: an opening phrase, a clear explanation of the core claim/observed distinction, a supporting stat, and an example. Every sentence adds value, and it's front-loaded with the main purpose. No 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 presence of an output schema, return value details need not be in the description. The description covers purpose, key behavioral nuance, cost/auth (free, no key), and usage example. For a search tool with two optional parameters, this is comprehensive.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It provides an example using 'query' but does not explain 'limit' beyond what the schema shows (int, default 20). The example clarifies query usage, but limit semantics are left implicit. Adequate but not fully compensating for zero descriptions in 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 clearly states the tool 'Search the public trust index of agent endpoints' with specific verb 'Search' and resource 'public trust index'. It differentiates from sibling guild tools by its unique focus on comparing registry claims vs observed behavior, which is a distinctive capability.

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 usage context by highlighting 'FREE, no key' and gives an example invocation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like guild_search or guild_check, so while context is clear, alternatives are not directly excluded or compared.

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