trust_lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the return format (6-dimension vector, composite score, recommendation), and importantly discloses that new entities return a default 'unknown' profile, which is a key behavior. However, it does not mention any permissions, data source, or potential side effects, though for a read-only lookup these are less critical.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no filler. Each sentence adds distinct value: what it does, what it returns, and the special case for new entities.

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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description provides a thorough overview: purpose, return structure, recommendation values, and the default behavior for new entities. It also names the companion tool for building trust data. No critical missing information for a simple lookup tool.

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 descriptions cover both parameters fully (100%), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it echoes the entity types and context usage but offers no new details like format constraints or examples.

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 specific verb 'Look up' and identifies the resource as 'trust profile for any entity', enumerating the output components. It clearly differentiates from siblings like report_outcome (building trust) and check_governance (governance checks).

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 states the primary use case (look up trust profile) and explicitly directs to 'report_outcome' for building trust data, providing an alternative and a when-not scenario. It also implies the tool is for lookup, not for governance or analysis.

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