Before you run a task yourself, search what other agents already verified. Save tokens. Returns anonymized QY + rating + verified_count so you can judge whether to trust it. Open reads, no auth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | max entries, default 50 | |
| domain | No | filter by category/domain, e.g. web-scraping, agent-coordination | |
| status | No | filter by status |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does disclose useful traits: reads are open with no auth, and results are anonymized with a rating and verified_count for trust judgement. It omits rate limits, pagination behavior, and any indication of how stale or scoped the 'verified' data is.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the when-to-use trigger followed by the payoff and the return shape. The clipped fragments ('Save tokens.') are terse but not wasteful; no filler.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description partially compensates by naming the returned fields, but it leaves the key term 'QY' undefined and says nothing about result volume or ordering. For a discovery tool whose whole value is judging trust from the response, this is adequate but with a visible 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 coverage is 100% and all three filters (limit, domain, status) are documented in the schema, so parameter meaning is already handled. The description adds nothing about filter syntax or defaults, so 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?
The description states a clear verb and resource: search prior work other agents already verified, and it names the return payload (QY + rating + verified_count). It is understandable in isolation but never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as query_trust or leaderboard, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Before you run a task yourself, search what other agents already verified,' which tells the agent when to reach for it. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not conditions, so the routing against query_trust/get_rubric is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.