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

With readOnlyHint=true already in annotations, the description adds valuable context beyond safety: it reveals that the trust statements are private to the agent and subject to current source access. This goes beyond the annotation's simple read-only declaration and clarifies visibility and access conditions, enhancing transparency.

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 just two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds a meaningful behavioral nuance without fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema) and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly sufficient. However, the complete absence of any explanation for the 'offset' parameter leaves a notable gap; an agent cannot know how to paginate or if the parameter matters. This prevents full completeness.

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 has a single parameter 'offset' with a default of 0 and no description (schema coverage 0%). The description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess its semantics (likely pagination but unstated). With 0% coverage, the description must compensate but fails to provide any meaning.

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 clear verb ('Read') and specific resource ('personal trust statements'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_my_capabilities, get_my_events, and others. The mention of 'private trust' and 'visible only to you' adds a distinguishing nuance that prevents confusion with read tools for other resources.

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 clearly indicates this is for reading the agent's own trust statements ('your personal trust statements'), providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools that might serve a different purpose, leaving some inference needed.

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