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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds context beyond these, such as 'metadata review only' and the explicit exclusions (no malware scanning, no safety guarantees, no installation approval). This enhances transparency without contradiction.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: first states the tool's function, second clarifies limitations. No extraneous information.

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 has an output schema (not shown), the description covers the input parameters and the nature of the output (trust signals). It addresses complexity by listing the types of signals and the boundaries of what the tool does not do, making it complete for an agent to understand its capabilities.

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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents them. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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?

The description clearly states it explains deterministic trust, source, package, safety, privacy, and review metadata signals for one HeyClaude entry, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like entry.safety by explicitly listing what it does not provide (malware scanning, automatic safety guarantees, installation approval).

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 includes a disclaimer about what the tool does not do, which implicitly guides usage, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidelines compared to sibling tools like entry.safety. No alternatives are named.

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