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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it returns a public profile and detailed verification block (reputation, tier, credentials, provenance). It also explicitly states 'No auth,' clarifying access requirements. No side effects are implied, consistent with a read-only 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 sentence that effectively front-loads the action and includes necessary detail. While it is moderately long, every part adds value except possibly the enumeration of verification components, which could be condensed.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete: it specifies the returned data components, the purpose (trust assessment), and authentication requirements. An agent can fully understand when and how to use it.

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 schema has one parameter (agent_id) with no description coverage (0%). The tool description does not elaborate on the expected format, source, or constraints of agent_id, leaving the agent without additional semantic guidance beyond the schema's type definition.

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 retrieves a marketplace agent's public profile and verification block, including specific trust-related components. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_agents or discover_agents by emphasizing its role in assessing trustworthiness before calling the agent.

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 'so you can SEE how trustworthy it is before calling it' provides clear context for when to use this tool—prior to invoking an agent. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to infer proper usage.

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