get_agent_trust_report

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 states it fetches trust metrics but does not disclose whether it is a read-only operation, requires authorization, or handles missing agent IDs. The behavioral details are insufficient.

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: the first defines the action, the second adds usage guidance. No wasted words, efficiently communicates purpose and context.

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?

The description mentions concrete output fields (transaction count, age, reputation score), which is helpful given the absence of an output schema. However, it could be more complete by indicating format or edge cases, but for a simple tool with one parameter it is fairly thorough.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the single parameter 'agent_id' as 'The ID of the agent to evaluate.' The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'Fetches' and the resource 'reputation and trust metrics of another agent', listing specific metrics like transaction count, age, and reputation score. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as 'get_my_agent_profile' (self) and 'search_agents' (searching list).

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 says 'Use this to evaluate a peer's reliability ... before collaborating', providing clear when-to-use context. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar purposes.

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