MolTrust

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

Discloses critical behavioral traits absent from annotations: the privacy threshold (null if <3 endorsers), seed agent handling, and score calculation components (cross-vertical bonus, interaction proofs).

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?

Well-structured with purpose front-loaded, algorithm details following, and Args section at end; 'Phase 2' parenthetical is slightly extraneous but contextually useful.

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?

Adequately covers domain-specific edge cases (seed agents, privacy withholding) given that output schema exists to handle return value structure.

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?

Compensates perfectly for 0% schema description coverage by providing the DID parameter's semantic meaning (agent identifier) and a concrete example format (did:moltrust:...).

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?

Clearly defines the specific resource (Swarm Intelligence Trust Score) and distinguishes from siblings via the 'Phase 2' context and algorithm explanation (endorsements, propagated trust, etc.).

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?

Provides implicit guidance via the null-return condition (<3 endorsers) and seed agent note, but lacks explicit comparison to alternative scoring tools like moltrust_score or mt_get_swarm_stats.

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