get_trust_score

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint false, destructiveHint false), it adds that no new check runs, no data source is called, and the operation is free ($0). It also lists the returned fields, which matters since no output schema exists, though it does not cover error cases such as having no stored check.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with zero waste: purpose and scope first, then the no-new-check constraint, then cost. The field list is compact and every sentence earns its place.

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-only lookup with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, constraints, cost, and return fields (necessary because no output schema exists). Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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% and the single entity_id parameter is already documented as 'Entity name, as sent to check_entity.' The description reinforces that the entity must have been checked before, but adds no syntax or format detail 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 states a specific verb (look up), resource (your own most recent trust score), and scope (for an entity you checked before, from your stored checks). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_entity by explicitly noting it 'Runs no new check and calls no data source.'

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?

It clearly states the usage context: only for entities previously checked, pulling from stored checks. It also implies when not to use it by noting no new check runs, but it never names check_entity or another alternative for fresh checks.

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