check_trust_tier

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses 'No authentication required' and lists return values, but does not explicitly state whether the scan is read-only or any side effects. The mention 'scan' implies safe operation, but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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?

Two sentences: the first efficiently describes functionality and output, the second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words or 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?

The description lists all key return values (score, tier, rate limits, attestation) even without an output schema. It covers the main purpose and usage context. Could mention error handling or edge cases, but adequate for a straightforward trust check tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional context or meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters.

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 scans a GitHub repository and returns its trust tier, including specific return fields like trust score, tier, rate limits, and attestation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_security or check_interaction_safety by focusing on trust tier.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to check any tool or agent before running it,' giving clear guidance on when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use or contrast with alternatives like verify_trust or check_security.

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