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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read ('Return'), but says nothing about permissions required, whether filtering is scoped, rate limits, or what 'decisions' contain. For a supply-chain/security tool with a rich risk surface, this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though efficiency here partly reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. But with zero annotations, 0% parameter coverage on five params, and no usage context, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to call it confidently among so many similar peers.

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?

Five parameters (decision, platform, skill_id, risk_tier, minimum_score) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. It does not explain what values decision/risk_tier/platform accept or how minimum_score filters results, leaving every parameter undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 verb and a resource domain ('Return agent skill provenance, permission, isolation, and supply-chain decisions'), so the general purpose is inferable. However, 'decisions' is vague about what is actually returned, and nothing distinguishes it from close siblings like recipes_agent_trust_fabric_pack or recipes_mcp_connector_trust_pack. Adequate but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. With 60+ sibling 'pack' tools in this family, an agent gets no help deciding when this one applies versus the trust-fabric or connector-trust packs.

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