Get trust documents

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/no-destroy, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context: agreement text is returned only when includeAgreementText is true because it is long, the token carries beneficial interest, and the trustee defaults to the holder. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but the added domain caveats are substantive.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its returned artifacts, and the practical gating detail (long agreement text, link always returned) is placed where it matters. It is somewhat long, and the closing sentences about beneficial interest and trustee designation are domain education rather than invocation guidance.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of enumerating return fields and flags the one costly optional artifact, which is exactly what an agent needs. Only the absence of routing guidance against siblings leaves a small gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only re-states the includeAgreementText gating condition already documented in the schema ('default: false; the link is always returned') and says nothing new about slug or tokenId, so it adds no meaning 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the legal record of a tokenized property') and then enumerates exactly what is returned: trust, agreement, legal description, parcel identifiers, deed reference, and uploaded documents. This is far more informative than sibling 'get_property' and lets an agent distinguish the two without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource ('legal record of a tokenized property') and there is a useful scope caveat ('not a title search or title insurance'), but the description never says when to prefer this tool over get_property, get_tax_status, or find_parcel. No alternatives named.

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