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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: human review on every domain, no auto-approval, free but rate-capped per day, and the downstream trust consequence. Missing details are secondary — whether repeated suggestions for the same domain are deduplicated or what the submission returns.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying distinct information — scope, ranking consequence, human review, cost limits. The ranking remark is slightly parenthetical but front-loading means an agent grasps the core action in the first clause.

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 four-parameter mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioural facts: what is accepted, what the trust grants, who approves, and the cost model. Return-shape expectations are the only notable gap.

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 100%, so the schema already defines domain, trusted_for, entity_id and why. The description adds context around the trusted_for categories and links brand trust to the brand's own items, but it adds no new per-parameter detail beyond that.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('Suggest a website as a trusted source') and narrows the scope to two concrete categories: a government food database or the official site of one brand/chain. The effect of the suggestion (rank 1 for the owner's items, rank 4 for unknown sites) makes the intent unambiguous. It does not, however, name a sibling tool it should be chosen over.

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 establishes context clearly: use it to propose a domain for trust, and it explicitly warns that 'this never approves one' — setting correct expectations against approval-oriented tools. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when to prefer an existing-domain lookup over a new suggestion.

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