Recommend Entities

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so description adds value by disclosing the ranking formula (expert reviews 70%, recency 15%, etc.). This provides useful behavioral context without contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and ranking, then a clear follow-up instruction.

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 no output schema, the description explains the ranking but not the response structure. It covers usage flow well but could describe return format for completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter (limit, query, category, exclude_ids).

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 'Get trust-ranked entity recommendations for a use case,' which is a specific verb+resource. It also details the ranking factors, distinguishing it from siblings like search or trust tools.

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?

It explicitly mentions using nanmesh.trust.review or nanmesh.trust.favor after evaluating results, guiding post-processing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to direct alternatives like search.

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