ep_report_trust_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no authentication is required and that the tool is for human reports. However, it does not describe what happens after submission (e.g., creates a ticket, triggers review) or any side effects. The principle about trust not being more powerful than appeal adds some behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a one-sentence principle. It is front-loaded with the main action and usage conditions, with no wasted words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers the core purpose, typical use cases, authentication requirement, and a guiding principle. It could briefly mention expected outcomes or next steps, but overall it's adequate.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining the enum values in report_type (the four use cases), linking them to the tool's purpose. This compensates for the missing schema description on report_type and enriches the meaning of the parameters.

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: 'Report a trust issue as a human.' It lists specific use cases (wrongly downgraded, harmed by trusted entity, fraud) and differentiates from siblings like ep_trust_evaluate, ep_trust_gate, and ep_trust_profile by emphasizing human reporting.

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 explicitly states 'No authentication required' and provides direct guidance on when to use ('For when someone is wrongly downgraded, harmed by a trusted entity, or sees fraud'). While it does not name alternatives, it gives strong usage context and a behavioral principle ('EP must never make trust more powerful than appeal').

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