Trust lists held by this peer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it requires no password, explains that an empty array means the peer trusts only its own documents, and specifies the exact conditions under which a result counts as verified. It does not disclose rate limits or error behavior, so it is strong rather than exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then the return shape, then the verification rule; every sentence carries information. It is dense and slightly run-on in a single paragraph, which keeps it just below maximally clean structure.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does: envelope fields (type, signer, version, revoked, peer count), the two statement types, and the empty-array meaning. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the response or decide to call it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly implies a no-argument call and spends its space on return semantics rather than inventing parameter detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — showing the trust statements a peer holds — and frames the outcome ('to explain why results are or are not verified'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like peers or index_status, and it scopes itself to the improved-search fork, so an agent knows exactly what this returns and when it is relevant.

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?

Usage context is explicit: use it to explain why a result is or is not 'verified', it applies only to the improved-search fork, and it is read-only with no password needed. It does not name a specific alternative tool to use instead for trust-related questions, so it stops short of the explicit alternative-routing that earns a 5.

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