assess_trust

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses graceful partial failure, parallel execution, output composition (raw sections, honesty caveats, summary), and explicitly states no numeric scoring. It lacks details on error handling or permissions, but the key behaviors are well covered.

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 concise and front-loaded, using three terse sentences. Each sentence delivers essential information: purpose/behavior, scoring expectation, and parameter effect. No redundant wording or filler.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description sufficiently describes return components (raw sections, caveats, summary) and key behaviors. It could detail the report structure more, but the high-level description is adequate for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool.

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?

Only the chain parameter has schema coverage; agentId and taskContext lack descriptions. The description adds meaning by explaining taskContext's role ('only shapes the summary text') and the tool's purpose for agentId, but it does not provide format details for agentId or chain defaults beyond the schema enum.

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 that this tool produces a factual trust report for an ERC-8004 agent by running identity, registration, reputation, and validation lookups in parallel. This distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools like get_registration_file and get_reputation, which focus on individual data sources.

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 implies the tool is for comprehensive trust assessment, combining multiple lookups into one report. It notes that taskContext only shapes the summary, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool (e.g., when only reputation is needed).

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