Check Public Trust Index Score

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: it is free, requires no auth, uses exact model+provider matching, queries a configurable hosted base (RAI_TRUST_API_BASE), and returns 'known: false' for unassessed items as a non-error absence of data. It even points to the self-assessment endpoint. This is rich, agent-relevant behavioral detail.

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?

Purpose and the key sibling distinction are front-loaded, and subsequent sentences carry distinct value (audience, auth/free status, edge-case 'known: false'). It is on the longer side and slightly repetitive, but nearly every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately: it names the returned items (score, certification status, incident history) and the 'known: false' behavior. It stops short of describing the exact response shape or the 'passes' field mechanics, but is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents model_name, provider, and min_score (including that 'passes' reflects the threshold). The description reinforces the 'exact model+provider match' requirement, which adds slight emphasis but no new semantics beyond the schema's 'Exact provider/model name' text. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (checks the public Trust Index score, certification status, and incident history) for a named model/tool. It explicitly differentiates itself from siblings: 'Unlike every other rai_* tool, which evaluates output the caller itself produced, this one looks up a public record about a THIRD PARTY'S model or tool.' An agent can distinguish it from rai_trust_score, rai_compliance, etc. without opening the schema.

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?

Clearly frames when to use it ('BEFORE invoking it') and for whom (agents/agent frameworks deciding whether to trust something before calling it). The contrast with all other rai_* tools implicitly signals when NOT to use it, but it does not name a specific alternative tool for the 'assess your own output' case.

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