get_trust_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that it avoids a full catalog load, which is useful, but the cryptic 'probe=false' is unexplained, and it does not state the return format or whether there are any side effects. It adds some transparency but leaves gaps.

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 sentence that gets to the point quickly. The parenthetical '(probe=false)' is slightly cryptic but not overly verbose. It is well-front-loaded and generally concise.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description gives the essential action and scope. However, it does not describe what the breakdown contains or how to interpret the result, and the 'probe=false' reference is unexplained, leaving some ambiguity for complete usage.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for 'slug'. The tool description only rephrases 'slug' as 'origin/slug', adding no new semantic meaning. It meets the baseline but does not compensate further.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed trust score breakdown'), and clearly scopes it to an 'origin/slug'. The phrase 'via Cleared Check (probe=false) — no full catalog load' distinguishes it from siblings like list_cleared_services or get_cleared_status, making its purpose unambiguous.

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: it is a lightweight, targeted lookup ('no full catalog load') for getting a detailed breakdown. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when this is the appropriate tool.

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