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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so safety needs no repetition. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the result carries a trust impact score — but omits return shape, count limits, or pagination for what could be a list result.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the trust-score payload appended. Nothing is wasted and there is no preamble.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the definition covers what to query and hints at the return payload. The only gap is enumeration/pagination behavior, which is minor here and there is no output schema to lean on.

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 the single agentId parameter is documented in the schema as 'Agent or kernel ID'. The description's 'a specific agent' adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the 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?

Specific verb+resource with a filter scope: 'Get anomalies involving a specific agent' plus a stated payload ('trust impact score'). It is distinguishable from get_unresolved_anomalies by the agent scoping, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 phrase 'involving a specific agent' implies when it applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not condition, and no pointer to get_unresolved_anomalies or get_anomaly_stats as alternatives. An agent must guess which anomaly tool fits.

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