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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the operation is a 'Get' (read-only) and describes the output (trust level from UNVERIFIED to CERTIFIED, score 0-100, registration details). It does not mention error cases or side effects, but for a simple lookup, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence that concisely explains purpose and returns. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy.

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 is simple with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and return fields. It does not specify how the tool handles unknown agents or the interaction between parameters, but for a straightforward reputation lookup, it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters (client_id and agent_name) already explained. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get trust score and reputation for an AI agent from FeedOracle KYA'. It specifies the resource (AI agent reputation) and the system (KYA), and the return value (trust level, score, registration details). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_claim or trust_status, which focus on claims or general trust.

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 provides clear context by mentioning the FeedOracle KYA system and the specific data it returns. This implies when to use the tool (when you need an agent's reputation from KYA). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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