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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly signals a read-only, public-profile retrieval, names the returned components, and states the decision-making purpose. It does not discuss edge-case behavior, but 'get' plus 'public profile' sufficiently indicates a side-effect-free operation.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the core action and resource, then lists the relevant result components. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description is complete enough for a simple, one-parameter tool with an output schema present. It explains what the response contains, and the output schema can cover exact return fields. It could be slightly stronger by noting when to prefer get_agent_health, but that is a secondary concern.

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% and the single parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds only 'by slug', which aligns with the schema but does not materially expand parameter meaning.

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 states a specific verb, 'get', and a specific resource, 'one AgentTrust agent's public profile by slug', and enumerates what is included (Agent Card, reliability score, trustDecision). This clearly distinguishes it from get_agent_health, list_agents, and send_heartbeat.

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 when to use the tool: when you need a specific agent's profile and a trustDecision to decide whether to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives like get_agent_health for health-specific checks or list_agents for discovering slugs.

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