explain_trust_score

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the purpose. It does not state that the call is read-only and side-effect free (only inferable from "explain"), whether it requires an authenticated wallet, whether it works when no score exists yet, or whether the output is prose or structured. It also does not clarify the wallet-vs-agentId selection behavior that matters for a two-optional-parameter tool.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no filler, which is close to ideal for a simple lookup tool. The economy comes at the cost of leaving behavior undisclosed rather than through any wasted wording.

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 two-parameter, non-nested tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns in general terms (a plain-language explanation) and what it operates on. What is missing is the fallback behavior when neither or both identifiers are supplied and any note on where the explained breakdown's components come from, which is modest given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters with formats and max lengths, making 3 the baseline. The description adds a small amount by framing the two parameters as alternative lookups ("an agent or wallet"), but it does not say whether exactly one is required or how both being optional is handled, so it adds no meaning 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 ("explain") and resource ("trust score breakdown") with explicit scope ("for an agent or wallet"), which is distinguishable from the sibling check_* tools that return scores rather than explain them. It does not name a sibling or otherwise state the contrast explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this instead of check_agent_trust, check_wallet_trust, or check_payee_trust, and no stated prerequisite such as needing an existing score first. The only implied context is the phrase "in plain language," which does not tell an agent under what conditions to prefer this tool.

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