Agent Trust Commons

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses 'No key' (no authentication needed) and describes what the returned data covers. It does not mention rate limits, pagination beyond the schema, or failure/empty-result behavior, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

One dense sentence plus a two-word 'No key' disclosure; the usage trigger is front-loaded. It is efficient with no filler, though the sentence is slightly run-on and the 'No key' note feels tacked on at the end rather than integrated.

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 2-parameter lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the when-to-use, what it returns, and the auth requirement. The main gap is not explaining what happens with no recorded data or how limit interacts with results, but overall it is adequate for correct 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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters (target: domain/endpoint URL, limit: 1 to 50) already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb+resource: 'lookup' of agent-recorded experience about endpoints, and enumerates the content returned (capability used, worked, duration, learnings). The purpose is specific and understandable. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings (trust_recent/trust_record) as a pre-call read operation, though it never names them.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Before you call an endpoint you have never used.' This tells the agent precisely when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with trust_recent (recent records) or trust_record (recording), so the exclusion criteria for siblings are left to inference.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the output content and scope: newest records across every target plus author information. However, it does not mention ordering details, pagination, permissions, side effects, or explicitly confirm that it is a read-only operation.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler and the core result is front-loaded. It would be slightly stronger as an explicit imperative or with the limit behavior mentioned, but it is economically written.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives the essential return content and scope, but it leaves out the meaning of the limit parameter, usage boundaries relative to sibling tools, and any behavioral caveats, so it is minimally complete rather than thorough.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for the 'limit' parameter, but it never mentions it. The schema provides only type and default, leaving an agent to infer that 'limit' restricts the number of returned records. The parameter is simple and optional, which prevents this from being worse.

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 identifies the resource ('records across every target'), the selection criterion ('newest'), and the added value ('who has been writing them'). It is clear about what the tool returns, though it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'return', and it does not directly distinguish itself from sibling tools.

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 explicit guidance about when to prefer trust_recent over trust_lookup or trust_record, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The word 'newest' provides only an implicit hint that this tool is for recent activity, so the agent must infer the appropriate usage context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses append-only behavior, no key, and that the author name is self-declared and stored as such. This warns agents that records are unauthenticated and immutable, which is valuable beyond the schema.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The usage trigger is front-loaded, and the behavioral caveats follow immediately.

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 simple append-only write tool, the description covers purpose, timing, authentication expectations, and immutability. There is no output schema, but the description does not need to explain a return value for this kind of record-keeping action.

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 67%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds meaning to the 'agent' parameter by noting it is self-declared, but it does not clarify less obvious fields like latency_ms or how to express partial outcomes beyond the enum.

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 clear verb-resource pair: after calling an endpoint, write down what happened. The append-only statement and the contrast with trust_lookup/trust_recent make it obvious this is the write-side sibling.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: after you call an endpoint, to leave a record for the next agent. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling names make the read/write split clear.

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