get_agent_trust_report

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

No annotations provided. The description explains the returned metrics (transaction count, age, reputation score) but does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, no redundant information.

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 simple read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately informs about the returned data. It could mention error handling but is largely complete.

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 has 100% coverage with one parameter described as 'The ID of the agent to evaluate.' The description adds that this is for a peer's reliability, but does not add format or constraints 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?

The description clearly states the tool fetches reputation and trust metrics of another agent. It is distinct from siblings like get_agent_manifest or get_my_agent_profile, which are about the agent's own data or manifest.

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?

Description gives a specific use case: 'evaluate a peer's reliability before collaborating.' However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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