Trust Network Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it provides aggregated stats, which is consistent. It does not contradict annotations and adds context about the network-wide scope.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Get aggregated trust stats', then lists specifics. Zero waste, highly efficient.

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 provides reasonable detail about what is returned (reviews, favors, positive ratio, breakdowns). It is adequate but could mention the data format (e.g., JSON object) for full 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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% by default. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 aggregates trust stats across the entire network, listing specific outputs like total reviews, total favors, positive ratio, and breakdowns. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trust.graph (graph) or trust.rank (ranking).

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 implies usage for network-wide summary but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks exclusionary guidance or alternative tool mentions.

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