ep_domain_score

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly explains output (per-domain confidence, evidence count, behavioral rates) but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, idempotency, or authorization requirements. Acceptable but incomplete.

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 sentences with front-loaded purpose. No redundant words. Every sentence adds value: purpose, domain list, return fields.

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 tool's complexity (domain breakdown, multiple return fields), description is fairly complete. It lists domains, explains output, and differentiates from similar siblings. Minor omission: no mention of error handling or edge cases like invalid entity_id.

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% but description adds value: for 'domains' parameter, it lists the seven domains and states 'If omitted, returns all domains.' This goes beyond the schema's description. For 'entity_id', it matches the schema. Overall, description enhances parameter understanding.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'entity's trust score broken down by behavioral domain'. It lists all seven domains and clarifies that trust is not scalar, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ep_trust_evaluate which likely gives overall trust.

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 the rationale for domain breakdown ('Trust is not a scalar...') and lists domains, implying use when domain-specific insight is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives among siblings.

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