agentscore

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying what the tool returns: investigation briefings, comparison verdicts, risk flags, and trust badges. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 description is two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the use cases follow immediately. Every sentence contributes meaningful 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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately summarizes the return types at a high level. Combined with the fully documented input schema and safety annotations, the agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly. It could be slightly richer on return structure, but for a read-only scoring tool the current coverage is sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both handles and platform are fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of comparisons aligns with the schema's note that 2-5 handles are for comparison, but it does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and object: 'Score 1-5 AI agents for trustworthiness,' which clearly identifies what the tool does. It also lists concrete outputs like investigation briefings, comparison verdicts, risk flags, and trust badges. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools sweep and xray, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description provides explicit use cases: 'Use for: trust checks, comparisons, verifications, badge generation.' This gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so it does not fully meet the 5-level bar.

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