check_trust

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

With no annotations, description fully discloses behavioral traits: optional authentication changes output, low confidence interpretation, meaning of score 0.5 with low confidence, and score_type options. Example response clarifies return fields and computed_at timestamp.

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?

Well-structured: starts with purpose, lists return fields, details score_type options, explains authentication levels, provides example call and response. No redundant sentences; every part adds value.

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 no output schema and 3 parameters, description is fully complete. It explains all return fields, authentication differences, score_type semantics, and even provides a full example response. Covers all necessary information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains all three parameters thoroughly: agent_id (required), score_type with options and defaults, and access_token with authentication behavior. Example call demonstrates parameter usage clearly.

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 checks an agent's trust score before a transaction, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like check_trust_batch (batch) and get_score_breakdown (detailed breakdown) by focusing on single-agent score retrieval with plain-language explanation.

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?

Explicitly says when to use ('before entering a transaction') and describes authentication impact on returned data. Does not explicitly say when not to use (e.g., for batch operations), but the sibling list implies this. Overall, provides clear usage context.

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