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

With no annotations, the description carries more burden, and it does disclose the returned fields and the trust-to-priority relationship. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, or how errors are handled.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence adds useful interpretation of the trust relationship, though it slightly repeats the earlier session-limits mention.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return shape and the trust-based meaning. It could still note prerequisites or read-only status, but the essential context is present.

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% for the single passportId parameter, so the schema already describes it as a Trust Passport/agent ID. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or constraint information beyond the schema's own 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?

States a specific verb and resource: getting an agent's scheduling priority based on trust score. It also previews the return contents (tier, session limits, actions, match priority weight). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling trust/passport tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies the tool is tied to trust score, but it never says when to call this versus siblings such as pabandi_trust_resolve or pabandi_verify_passport. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection guidance.

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