get_trust_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description provides transparency by stating it reads from the local chain (read-only), and specifies the contents of the return JSON. It does not mention potential side effects or access restrictions, but the read-only nature is clear.

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 at four sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. Each sentence contributes essential information: purpose, content, argument requirement, and return details. No superfluous text.

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 presence of an output schema (return structure documented) and the tool's moderate complexity, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and that no input is needed. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke.

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?

There are no parameters, but the description adds value by explicitly confirming 'No arguments required,' which goes beyond the empty schema to reassure the agent. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 4.

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: 'Return structured trust evidence for this agent.' It specifies the verb (return) and resource (trust evidence), and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on aggregation rather than individual chain operations or verification steps.

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 explains that the data can be used by other agents to assess trustworthiness, implying when to use. It also clarifies that no arguments are required. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use or mention alternatives, though the sibling tool names provide context.

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