trust_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It mentions adding economic evidence, recalculating the score, and deduplicating by payment_hash, which implies idempotency. It does not cover permissions, response format, or error handling, but the disclosed behaviors are substantial.

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 three short sentences, each delivering distinct value: purpose, effects, and dedup behavior. No fluff or repetition, making it highly efficient 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?

The description gives a clear overview of purpose and side effects, and the schema covers all parameters. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the return value or error behavior for duplicate payment_hash submissions, leaving minor gaps in 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; the dedup reference is already present in the schema for payment_hash. 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('completed transaction'), with a clear scope ('for trust scoring') and additional actions ('adds economic evidence', 'recalculates score', 'deduplicates by payment_hash'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like trust_lookup or trust_evidence by focusing on transaction recording.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when a transaction is completed and needs to be recorded for trust scoring. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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