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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that access is free and requires no auth, and that results include an MCP endpoint for follow-up connection. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated or cached, or any rate limits, which are gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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 tightly written sentences with the core purpose and access model front-loaded. Every clause earns its place, including the free/no-auth note and the mention of the MCP endpoint in the response.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% schema description coverage, the description does not need to explain return values or parameter details. It provides the key operational facts (free, no auth, what actors include), though it could explicitly confirm read-only behavior given the absence of annotations.

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%, so the input schema already documents limit, sort_by, actor_type, capability, min_trust_score, and min_recommendations. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond implying default trust-ranked ordering, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('trusted actors on the MINT network'), and clarifies the return payload (trust score, ratings, recommendations, capabilities, endpoint). It distinguishes itself implicitly from single-actor tools like mint_trust_score and mint_trust_compare by being a ranked browsing/list operation, but does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 makes clear this is a free, unauthenticated, open discovery endpoint, which tells an agent it can be used for broad actor lookup. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus mint_trust_score, mint_trust_compare, or mint_feed, so the usage guidance is only implied.

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