trust_lookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It clearly states the return structure (score 0-100, tier, verification details), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention any failure modes, permissions, or side effects beyond the implied lookup action.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the action and purpose. The first sentence states what the tool does and when to use it; the second lists the key return fields. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, and every word contributes to the overall understanding.

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 lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the action, the timing, and the return values. It is missing some detail about what 'verification details' includes, and there is no mention of error scenarios (e.g., agent not found), but for the tool's complexity, it is largely 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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (agent_id) with a clear description ('Agent UUID or name to look up'). The tool description does not add any extra parameter information, but since the schema already fully documents the parameter, the baseline of 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 states a specific action ('Look up an agent's trust score') and the resource (agent's trust). It adds context ('before transacting') and specifies return values (score, tier, verification details). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like trust_verify or trust_search, which could also be used for trust-related lookups.

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 phrase 'before transacting' provides a clear context for when this tool should be used, implying a pre-transaction trust check. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, such as using trust_verify for verification requests or trust_history for past scores.

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