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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the returned payload shape (Agent Card, reliability score, trustDecision with recommended/confidence/reasons), which is useful context even though an output schema exists.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the operation and then enumerates the response contents. Every clause serves a purpose, though the return-value enumeration is somewhat heavy for a one-parameter read tool.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the definition is essentially complete. It arguably over-explains return values that the output schema already carries, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the slug parameter is fully documented in the schema as the URL slug from a profile or list_agents result. The description only echoes that lookup is by slug, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Get) and resource (one AgentTrust agent) qualified by slug, plus what the response contains. It distinguishes itself reasonably from list_agents and get_agent_health by being the single-agent profile fetch, but it never names a sibling 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 phrase 'for deciding whether to invoke it' implies the decision-making context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-alternatives guidance, and check_agent_trust is never mentioned as the likely alternative for trust checks.

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