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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature (returns data, no mutations), the edge case for unregistered agents, and the free/no-payment-header requirement. It does not mention rate limits or latency, but the core behaviors are transparent.

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 information-dense but well-structured: purpose, input, output fields, edge case, and pricing. It is a bit long but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the core purpose and then details specifics.

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?

An output schema exists (not shown), so return values are covered there. The description covers input formats, edge cases, and operational details (free, no payment header). Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool is missing.

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 only defines agent_ref as a string with 0% coverage. The description compensates by explaining that it accepts a slug, name, or id, giving concrete examples. This adds essential meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 purpose: a Trust Pulse for an AgentWorld agent profile, returning specific credit-related fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_agent_profile by focusing on trust/credit metrics, and it names the resource (profile slug/name/id) it operates on.

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 states the accepted input formats (slug, name, id) and mentions the behavior for unregistered agents. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when to use this one vs others, but the description's focus on credit/trust signals makes its niche clear. The free/no-payment-header note provides usage context.

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