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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the depth-1 boundary (a one-hop verification, not full traversal) and the omit-context wildcard semantics. It is fully consistent with the annotations—no contradiction.

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 short sentences, zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded first, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining a non-obvious default behavior. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 schema fully documents all three parameters and the annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile. However, there is no output schema and the description never states what the check returns—a boolean per target, a filtered list, or a single verdict—which the agent needs to interpret results. The directionality of 'depth 1' (relative to the graph owner) is also implicit rather than stated.

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% ('Graph owner', 'If set, only this context matches', 'Identities to test'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds one complementary piece the schema lacks: the default behavior when context is omitted ('Omit context to match any context'), which completes the parameter semantics for the agent.

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 ('Check') with a specific resource ('identities... in a trust graph') and a precise scope qualifier ('at depth 1'). This distinguishes it clearly from the trust_* sibling family: connect_trust_create, connect_trust_revoke, and connect_trust_graph all imply different actions, while this is a predicate/verification tool.

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 implies its use case ('check... at depth 1' as a quick verification) and provides parameter-level guidance ('Omit context to match any context'), but it never states when to choose this over siblings like connect_trust_graph or connect_lookup. The alternative-selection logic is left for the agent to infer from the depth-1 qualifier.

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