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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does deliver real behavioral content: read-only semantics via 'Read'/GET, the 'trust null until computed' state, bounded history (30 entries), and a prompt-injection warning about *_untrusted fields. It omits error behavior for unknown handles, auth requirements, and pagination, which leaves meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two dense sentences, purpose first, security caveat second — nothing is wasted. The parenthetical return-value list and the untrusted-data clause both earn their place, though the second sentence is heavily compressed.

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?

Absent an output schema, the description correctly takes on responsibility for describing return values and even the null-until-computed edge case. What remains uncovered is authentication, not-found behavior, and whether the 30-entry history is configurable — minor for a single-parameter read tool.

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?

There is one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%; the schema only supplies a regex pattern with no prose. The description compensates partially by framing handle as the path segment in /v1/agents/{handle}/trust, implying it identifies a specific agent, but it adds no detail on format, case, or resolution behavior beyond the pattern.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read an agent's public trust record') and enumerates the exact payload: score, components, weights, version, last 30 history entries. The endpoint mapping to GET /v1/agents/{handle}/trust makes the scope unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like get_agent or get_leaderboard.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for looking up one agent's trust by handle. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no mention of whether get_agent already returns trust, and no comparison to any of the 28 sibling tools.

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