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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses key behaviors: matching rules (ignores trailing-slash and casing, never fuzzy), error handling (returns empty list, not error), and the additional fields returned in trust-check mode (reliabilityScore, ownership verification, trustDecision). This is thorough and transparent.

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 but dense with information. It front-loads the primary purpose and then details both modes without redundancy. It's slightly long but justified by the complexity of the dual-mode behavior. No fluff.

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 an output schema exists, return values need not be explained in detail. The description covers both usage modes, edge cases (empty list for unmatched URL), matching rules, and the trust-decision fields. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly without further clarification.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value for endpointUrl: explains its purpose, matching semantics, empty-list behavior, and extra fields returned. For limit and cursor, the schema already documents them, but the description doesn't add much—however, that's acceptable given high coverage.

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 the tool's core function: 'Discover AgentTrust agents' and distinguishes two modes: a plain listing and a trust check via endpointUrl. It names the resource (agents) and the specific verb (discover/list/check), making it distinct from siblings like get_agent_health or 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 explicitly explains when to pass endpointUrl ('to check the trust status of a specific external agent... before deciding whether to invoke it') and when not to ('Without endpointUrl, returns the plain paginated listing'). This gives clear usage context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_agent_health, which is a minor gap.

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