Aggregate a Published Trust Verdict

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail: the returned trust score is unsigned, the tool does not re-probe or verify signatures, and the evidence is existing rather than newly computed. This meaningfully exceeds what the annotations convey.

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?

Two well-structured sentences: the first packs in the full return scope with front-loaded content, and the second covers the critical limitation and correct alternative. There is no filler, and every phrase adds decision-relevant information.

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?

Given one parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It covers what is returned, the unsigned nature of the score, the absence of verification, and the sibling to call instead. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 single parameter dataset_id is fully described in the schema with an example and minLength, so the schema carries the heavy lifting. The description contributes little beyond restating 'canonical dataset id' and the example, which is already present. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 uses a clear verb ('Return') and specifies the exact resource: published attestation facts, the unsigned methodology-versioned trust score, numeric components, component_availability reasons, and existing evidence for one canonical dataset id. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from verify_attestation by stating what it does not do, which helps an agent select it correctly among many siblings.

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 when to use the tool: to aggregate existing published trust data for one canonical dataset id. It also provides an explicit when-not and alternative: 'This tool does not re-probe or verify the signature; call verify_attestation separately.' This is direct, actionable guidance.

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