vorim_verify_trust

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds context: it specifies the tool is a public endpoint with no authentication required, and describes the return values (trust score, status, active scopes, key fingerprint). This covers key behavioral traits like accessibility and output format, though it could mention rate limits or error handling for a higher score.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then adds key behavioral details (public endpoint, no auth), and ends with return values. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (simple verification with one parameter), no annotations, no output schema, and rich description coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, usage context, and return values. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on output structure or error cases, but it's sufficient for a tool of this nature.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'agent_id' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides regarding parameters. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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: 'Verify an agent's identity and trust score.' It specifies the verb ('verify') and the resource ('agent'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'vorim_get_agent' or 'vorim_list_agents' beyond the verification focus. The description is specific but lacks sibling differentiation for a full 5.

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 some usage context by stating 'Public endpoint — no authentication required,' which implies when to use it (for public verification) and hints at alternatives (tools requiring authentication). However, it doesn't explicitly name when-not-to-use scenarios or compare to specific siblings like 'vorim_get_agent,' leaving guidance implied rather than explicit.

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