agent_get_trust

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so richly: it discloses a state-changing side effect (score recalculation and last_recalculated publication), an off-by-default access gate requiring VOIDLY_MCP_RELAY_ALLOW_STATE_CHANGES=1, that data is public/unencrypted, and an explicit prompt-injection warning. These are exactly the behaviors an agent cannot infer otherwise.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by side effect, access gate, and trust caveats. Each sentence carries distinct information, though four sentences is on the denser side for a single-parameter lookup.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose. The description supplies the missing behavioral context a reader needs: side effects, the access gate, data sensitivity, and the untrusted-content warning.

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?

Only one parameter (did) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format or identifier syntax beyond 'Agent DID', matching the baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: retrieving an agent's trust score and its components. It is clear and distinct in kind from siblings, but it never names agent_trust_leaderboard, the closest alternative, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied (look up one agent's trust) but the description never states when to prefer this over agent_trust_leaderboard or what precondition gates it beyond the env var. The one explicit 'when' is the conditional availability, not a routing rule.

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