get_trust_badge

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: 'Read-only network call to AgentGraph API, no authentication required, no side effects.' It also explains the badge auto-updates. However, it does not mention potential error conditions (e.g., invalid entity_id), but given no annotations, this is a minor gap.

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 concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value: output details, auto-update behavior, and usage context. No unnecessary words.

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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, behavior (auto-update, read-only, no auth), and when to use it. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 coverage is 100% with a detailed parameter description for entity_id. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so a 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get an embeddable trust badge URL for an AgentGraph entity.' It specifies the action (get URL), resource (trust badge for an AgentGraph entity), and what is returned (JSON with badge_url, markdown, html). This differentiates it from sibling tools by positioning it as a post-processing step after verify_trust or lookup_identity.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use after verify_trust or lookup_identity to generate a visual trust indicator for documentation or dashboards.' It also states that the tool is a read-only network call with no authentication required, helping the agent decide when to invoke it appropriately.

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