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

The description discloses meaningful behaviors beyond the name: default visibility is private and the statement is tied to evidence. However, with no annotations provided, it omits idempotency semantics, side effects, authorization requirements, and whether trust statements can later be revised.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and the most decision-relevant behavioral trait, 'private by default', making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

This is a create operation with a nested required statement object, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not explain the required subfields or idempotency behavior. The available context is too thin for an agent to confidently construct a valid call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at visibility and evidenceIds. It provides no meaning for interactionId, context, value, reason, or idempotencyKey, leaving most parameters underspecified.

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 names a specific action ('Create') and resource ('personal trust statement'), and adds distinguishing traits: private by default and tied to submitted interaction evidence. It separates the tool from revise_trust and similar create_* siblings without naming them explicitly.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like revise_trust, create_attestation, or get_my_trust. The description states what the tool does but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or decision criteria.

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