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 adds the 90-day lookback window and the returned dimensions, which is useful context, but says nothing about what 'tracked agent' means or what happens for an untracked one.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the resource and window come first, the motivating question last.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained. Combined with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient; only the identifier format and untracked-agent behavior are missing.

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?

Only one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the scope is 'one tracked agent', but gives no hint about the name_or_repo format (bare name vs. owner/repo) or how it maps to the identifier used by siblings.

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?

Names a specific resource (90-day trust-score, grade, and rank history) scoped to one agent, and frames the question it answers. An agent can distinguish it from check_agent_trust (current state) by the historical framing, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 trailing question 'is it improving or declining?' implies a trend-analysis use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to compare_agents or check_agent_trust for alternatives.

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