verify_trust

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only and requires no authentication, which is transparent. The output structure is described, but potential details like rate limits or side effects are omitted, though none are expected.

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: first specifies action and output, second adds usage guidance and safety traits. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

For a tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the output structure, usage context, and behavioral traits (read-only, no auth). An agent can confidently use this tool with the provided information.

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 input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add new parameter-level details but explains the output format, which indirectly helps understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 verifies an entity's trust score on AgentGraph and lists the specific return fields (trust_score, trust_tier, grade, component breakdown), distinguishing it from sibling tools like bot_quick_trust or check_trust_tier which presumably offer simpler checks.

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 advises using this tool before interacting with unknown agents to assess risk, providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the guidance is practical and sufficient.

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