ep_trust_evaluate

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses return type (Trust Decision with failure reasons) and context-aware evaluation, but does not state if it is read-only, auth requirements, or side effects. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with main purpose. No redundancy, each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more structured but overall efficient.

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?

Description covers core functionality and return type, but lacks output schema. For a trust evaluation tool, more detail on decision interpretation or failure reason format would aid completeness. Adequate for basic use.

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%; description does not add significant meaning beyond schema. It notes context is optional and for context-aware evaluation, but this is already implied by schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Evaluate' and resource 'entity against a trust policy', and lists built-in policies. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ep_trust_gate or ep_domain_score by focusing on policy evaluation for routing/payment decisions.

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?

States explicit use case: 'Use this to make routing and payment decisions.' Provides clear context, though does not mention when not to use or list alternatives. Lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.

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