trust_network

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the output scope (network-wide statistics) but does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or how the data is aggregated. The absence of annotations leaves these gaps, though the straightforward nature of a stats tool mitigates the concern.

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 the core purpose. Every word adds value: the first sentence lists concrete statistics, and the second gives the functional context ('social proof'). No redundant or filler content.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It enumerates the data fields provided and contextualizes their use. It could potentially mention whether data is live or cached, but that is not essential for a statistics 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying exactly what statistics are returned, which gives the agent a clear expectation of output without needing parameter explanations. It does not over-explain, and the schema coverage is trivially complete.

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 identifies the tool as providing network-wide trust statistics, enumerating specific data points (total agents, stamps, endorsements, wishes, average reputation, top categories). It distinguishes itself from sibling trust tools by focusing on aggregate network metrics rather than individual trust checks or comparisons.

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 usage for obtaining a high-level overview of the AgentStamp network's trust profile ('social proof'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_leaderboard or trust_check. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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