benchmark_trust_verdict

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

Annotations indicate read-only and non-destructive. Description adds behavioral details: preview is free with rate limits, full requires token and credit, and explains output differences between tiers. No contradictions.

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?

Description is well-structured but somewhat lengthy. It prioritizes key information upfront. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall 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 3 parameters, no required, good annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers usage, tier flavors, and output details. Lacks explicit return type info but summarizes well.

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 covers all parameters (100% coverage). Description adds meaning: explains tier options, and how benchmark and category filter results. Goes beyond schema by clarifying behavior.

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's purpose: a TensorFeed signed ruling on benchmark trustworthiness, outputting a trust band and score. It differentiates from sibling verdict tools by focusing on benchmarks.

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 guidance on tier selection (preview vs full) with cost and limits, and input options (benchmark, category, or neither). However, lacks direct comparison to sibling verdict tools.

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