trust_register

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions 'Free registration, instant trust score' and does not disclose that registration is a side-effecting operation (e.g., creating a record), any data retention implications, or required permissions. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that starts with the primary verb and immediately conveys the core action and key benefits. There is no extraneous information, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple with only three parameters and no output schema, so the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks any disclosure of side effects, return values, or post-registration behavior, which would be helpful given the absence of annotations and output schema. It is the minimum viable description but leaves some gaps.

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 provides full parameter descriptions for all three parameters (name, contact, description), so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema covers parameter meaning fully, and the description adds no additional context beyond that.

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 with a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('trust registry'), making it obvious that this is for self-registration. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like trust_lookup, trust_review, and trust_list by indicating a write/creation action rather than read/review actions.

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 provides clear context for use: it is for registering oneself in the trust registry, with the added benefits of free registration and instant trust score. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the verb and resource make the intended use unambiguous relative to sibling tools.

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