Render the trust page as a self-contained file

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description explicitly discloses that no file is written and the returned HTML is fully self-contained with no CDN, webfont, analytics, script, or external requests. This adds meaningful behavioral detail and aligns with the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core behavior first, then gives actionable usage guidance, then explains the self-contained security rationale. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 the annotations and output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: what it returns, that it does not write files, and why the output is self-contained. This is sufficient for an agent to call the tool and handle the result correctly.

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 the parameters. The description references HTML and Markdown, which maps to the format enum, but it does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 returns the trust page as a complete HTML or Markdown string. It identifies the exact resource and output form, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling preview_trust_page, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 practical guidance: the server never writes files, so the agent must save the output itself or have its agent write it to go through approval. This is useful context, though it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer render_trust_page over preview_trust_page.

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