trust_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists filter criteria and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered, whether pagination exists, or what the return format is. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the verb and resource immediately. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

With six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain what the search returns, how multiple filters combine, or any behavioral context such as pagination or default limit. The sentence leaves the agent without enough context for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already documents all six parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions name, capability, minimum score, and verification status, which map to q, capability, min_score, and verified, but it does not add any semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 searches agents by name, capability, minimum score, or verification status, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like trust_lookup or trust_list, so it is clear but not fully distinguishing.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify that trust_search is for filtered queries while trust_lookup might be for exact ID lookups, leaving the usage context entirely implicit.

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