trust_check

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

The description discloses return values and the edge case for unregistered agents. No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden; it adequately describes the behavior without contradictions.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with 'Single-call trust verdict,' and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence 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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, behavior, and an edge case. An agent can confidently invoke this tool with the provided information.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds 'any wallet address' which reinforces the purpose but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 returns a trust verdict for any wallet address, including specific outputs (trusted status, score, tier, profile info) and handling of unregistered agents. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'trust_compare' or 'team_trust_check' which serve different purposes.

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 implies this is the go-to single-call trust check, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. However, the 'single-call' and 'any wallet address' phrasing provides clear context for its general-purpose usage.

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