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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns scores, badges, findings, and license SPDX, and handles the 'not_scanned' case with a scan URL. It implies the repo must be public. Missing details like authentication or rate limits, but still informative.

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?

Two sentences: first describes output thoroughly, second states usage. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose and details.

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?

With no output schema, description fully explains return values and special cases (not_scanned). Covers interpretation of absence of report. Sufficient for an agent to understand expected results.

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% with well-described parameters (repo and owner). Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond using the tool for trust evaluation, which is appropriate given schema completeness.

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 produces a 'Full Archimedes Trust Report' for one public GitHub repository, listing specific scores and details. It distinguishes from siblings like check_dependencies and search_trust_reports by focusing on a single repo's trustworthiness assessment.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when the user asks whether a specific repo or tool is trustworthy, safe to depend on, or well maintained.' Provides context for when to invoke, and clarifies that absence of a report is not evidence of a problem. No explicit exclusion of alternatives, but clear enough.

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