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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds context about the weighted algorithm and reputation metrics, but it leaves ambiguity about whether the tool returns a mapped score or updates the guest's trust, especially since the schema parameter description says 'update trust for.' This does not directly contradict the readOnlyHint, but the ambiguity is notable.

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 concise sentences with no redundant content. The first sentence clearly states the primary action, and the second adds relevant algorithmic detail without waste.

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?

The tool has a nested object parameter, no output schema, and annotations that require interpretation. The description is too sparse to tell an agent what to expect—such as the output format, whether the trust score is persisted or only returned, or any prerequisites (e.g., guest registration). It conveys the core idea but not enough for confident invocation.

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 description coverage is only 33%, with only guest_did described. The description references 'platform reliability' and 'reputation metrics,' which loosely map to source_platform and native_reputation, but it does not explain how the nested reputation object's fields are weighted or how guest_did is used. This is insufficient compensation for the low schema 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?

The description states a clear action—mapping external agent reputation to a Hive trust score—and mentions a weighted algorithm, which distinguishes it from siblings like hivegate_execute or hivegate_register_guest. However, 'map' is somewhat abstract and could imply either calculation or state mutation, so it isn't maximally specific.

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 usage when an external agent's reputation needs to be converted into a Hive trust score, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. Sibling names provide context but no direct when-to-use guidance is given.

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