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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates the tool is a read-only informational resource ('Returns the AgentTrust trust model'), which is a meaningful behavioral trait. It also discloses the kind of content returned (guarantees, trust gaps, proof gates vs AI audit). It does not describe output format, but an output schema exists, so that burden is partially shifted.

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 and every word earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the usage directive. No fluff, no repetition of the title.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns and when to use it. It could arguably name the sibling alternative (e.g., recommend_release_conditions) for contrast, but the explicit 'read this before designing an escrow flow' guidance is sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The description adds value by explaining what the returned model contains, which is more useful than a bare 'Returns the trust model' statement. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 returns the AgentTrust trust model and enumerates its content: guarantees, remaining trust gaps, and guidance on proof gates vs AI audit. It also includes a direct instruction to read it before designing an escrow flow, which distinguishes it from the many escrow-related sibling tools.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Read this before designing an escrow flow.' This is a clear usage directive that helps the agent select it over siblings like prepare_escrow, create_escrow_vault, or recommend_release_conditions. It also implies it is a prerequisite/read-only reference rather than an action tool.

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