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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds the score range, influencing factors, and the pending backend status, which is useful context. However, it omits expected behavior for unknown DIDs, error responses, or any authentication requirements, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 that front-load the primary action and resource, then add secondary context (factors and availability). Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, the output range, and its availability. It lacks details on return value structure or error handling, but the simplicity of the tool makes this acceptable. The pending status is an important caveat that is clearly stated.

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 input schema fully describes the only parameter 'did' with a clear definition, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra detail about the parameter format, validation, or any syntax requirements beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and names the resource 'Hive trust score (0-100) for a DID', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_attestations or verify_attestation that focus on attestations. The scope is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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?

It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, but the purpose itself differentiates it from siblings. The 'Backend pending (Q3 2026)' note implies it is not ready for production use but does not suggest an alternative. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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