check_trust

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does useful work by disclosing meaning of results — the A0..A4 scale, the attested flag, and the key caveat that a low level or attested=false is 'unproven — not necessarily false, but not verified.' It omits auth/rate-limit/error behavior, but the semantic interpretation of the output is well covered.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the core action and then the return contract. Every sentence carries information; only the parenthetical caveat could arguably be tightened, but it earns its place by preventing a false-negative misread.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't enumerate return fields, yet it helpfully summarizes them and adds interpretation. The one meaningful gap is the absence of any routing guidance relative to the sibling trust_ladder, which likely overlaps in purpose.

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 0% and there is one parameter, so the description would ideally state the expected format (e.g., bare domain vs URL). It only implies 'domain' implicitly through the tool's phrasing; the parameter name is self-describing but no explicit format guidance compensates for the empty 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?

States a specific verb+resource (check the trust status of a domain) and enumerates exactly what is returned: trust level A0..A4, attested flag, what_is_proven, proof method, and public fact count. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'trust_ladder' or explain how it differs from 'get_facts', so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

"Before you trust it" implies a usage context (pre-trust verification), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no mention of the sibling alternatives like trust_ladder or get_facts. Usage is only implied.

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