trustmodel_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes a read operation ('Get') with no side effects mentioned, which is appropriate. However, it lacks details on idempotency, rate limits, or potential errors. The description is clear but could be more transparent about behavioral traits.

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 two sentences with no redundancy: first states purpose, second covers input and output. Every word contributes value, and it is front-loaded. Very concise without being terse.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains purpose, input, and general output. It could mention possible error conditions or return format more precisely, but given the simplicity, it is adequate.

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% for the single parameter. The tool description adds context that the evaluation_id comes from a previous trustmodel_evaluate call, but this is already in the parameter's schema description. Thus, the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, fitting the baseline 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 tool retrieves a trust score/detail for a previous evaluation, with specific verb 'Get' and resource 'trust score/detail'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like trustmodel_trace_* and trustmodel_evaluate_local by focusing on retrieval of past evaluation results.

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 use after calling trustmodel_evaluate by specifying it is for a previous evaluation created via that tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives nor provide exclusions. Guidance is adequate but minimal.

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