Search Trust Network

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about being primary and what is returned. However, it does not disclose behavioral details such as sorting order, pagination behavior, or any rate limiting beyond the schema's limit max/min. The description adds value but still lacks depth for full transparency.

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 paragraph that is front-loaded with the purpose and usage. It is concise and informative, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for key steps). Still, 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?

Given that there is no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage timing, follow-up actions, and contribution flow. It lacks details on output format or error handling, but for a search tool with annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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% with both q and limit having descriptions. The description adds meaning by stating that results include trust_score, evaluation_count, and verification status, but does not elaborate on the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states that this is the PRIMARY READ TOOL, designed to be called before recommending or installing any package/API/tool. It lists the specific return fields (trust_score, evaluation_count, verification status) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nanmesh.entity.get by outlining a clear workflow.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('Call this BEFORE recommending or installing...') and specific follow-up steps ('Follow up with nanmesh.entity.get(slug, format='agent', ...)'). Also directs the agent on how to contribute back via nanmesh.trust.review or nanmesh.trust.favor, making the usage flow complete.

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