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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return' implies a read operation, but there is no explicit read-only statement, no information about authentication, pagination, filtering behavior, or the effect of omitting parameters.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the verb and contains no filler, which is efficient. It is slightly too sparse for a tool with four parameters and no annotations, but it avoids unnecessary repetition.

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 shape need not be described. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and four parameters, the description is not complete enough to guide an agent on filtering or invocation beyond a minimal notion of the returned content.

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 0% and there are four optional parameters. The description mentions 'dimensions' and 'workflow tiers', which loosely correspond to dimension_id and trust_tier, but it does not explain what status, trust_tier, workflow_id, or dimension_id actually filter or control.

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 (Return) and names the resource contents: Agent Trust Fabric dimensions, workflow tiers, source evidence, and buyer proof. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling recipes_* pack tools, several of which also return trust or assurance artifacts.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no explanation of how the optional filters should be applied. The description only states what is returned.

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