get_facts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so for the most important trait: that some returned data is unverified ('auto_collected ... NOT verified'), plus an explicit instruction not to over-trust it and a note that provenance is returned. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and unknown-domain behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the critical interpretation caveat. No filler, though the trust warning is stated twice in slightly different 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still adds useful semantic context about attestation_status. For a single required parameter it is close to complete, missing only input format and failure behavior for unknown domains.

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% for the single 'domain' parameter, so the description must compensate; it conveys that the input identifies a domain whose facts are read, but gives no format or example (e.g., bare hostname vs URL). Partial compensation only.

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 and resource ('Read a domain's public facts from the registry'), which is unambiguous. However, it never differentiates itself from siblings like search_registry or check_trust, 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?

There is no 'use this when' guidance and no comparison to the alternatives (search_registry, check_trust, ask_entity, trust_ladder). The caveat about attestation_status tells the agent how to interpret results, not when to prefer this tool over a sibling.

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