check_trust

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Read-only. Does not modify any data' and 'Advisory signal, not a guarantee', and explains tier ordering. However, it does not mention error behavior, potential logging, or state changes beyond read-only, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Extremely concise: opens with core purpose, then usage guidelines, tier info, read-only note, and parameter/return sections. Every sentence adds value. No redundancy or filler.

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 output schema exists (described in Returns), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, behavior, and return structure. It lacks error handling or rate limit info, but for a simple check tool, this is nearly complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds tier ordering context, default value for min_tier, and examples for task_type. It also describes the return format (JSON with allowed, score, tier, risk_level, reason), going beyond the 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?

The description clearly states it provides a 'Quick yes/no delegation decision' and returns 'allowed (true/false) with a human-readable reason'. It distinguishes from siblings by noting 'NOT for detailed analysis — use check_reputation' and 'NOT for rating history — use get_attestations_received', making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when you only need a go/no-go answer before delegating work' and provides clear exclusion criteria with specific alternative tool names. This is textbook usage guidance.

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