Trust lists held by this peer

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description substantially exceeds that: it states 'Read-only; needs no password', explains the verification rule (author must be on a trusted coordinator's list, or signedOnly=true in a closed network), and interprets the empty-array case. This is exactly the extra behavioral context the annotation does not carry.

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 core action is front-loaded and the remaining sentences each carry distinct payload (return shape, verification semantics, empty-array meaning). It is dense and somewhat long, but no sentence is redundant given the absence of an output schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns — and it does, enumerating the envelope fields (type, signer, version, revoked, peer count) and the two statement variants. Combined with the fork-only caveat and read-only note, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 zero parameters there is nothing to disambiguate, and the description correctly does not invent any. Baseline for a no-param tool.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Show which trust statements your peer holds') and immediately states the diagnostic purpose ('to explain why results are or are not verified'). No sibling (ranking, search, crawl, peer list) overlaps with trust-statement inspection, so the tool is unambiguously distinguishable.

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?

Gives clear usage context — debugging verification outcomes — and scopes applicability with '(improved-search fork only)'. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, which keeps it short of the top score.

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