wwa_trust_score_calculate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the weighted calculation and return values, which adds transparency, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if it has side effects. For a calculation tool, this is a minor gap, but still leaves some uncertainty.

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 exactly two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second efficiently lists the formula weights and output types. Every word contributes to agent understanding, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: purpose, computation method, and output (score, tier, autonomy level, recommendations). Given there is no output schema, this return-value disclosure is crucial and well-handled. The only omitted element is a statement about operational side effects, but this is likely implicit for a read-only calculation 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 schema fully describes each parameter, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds extra semantic value by mapping parameters to their weights (e.g., success_rate 30%, uptime_percentage 15%), explaining the relative importance of each input. This goes beyond the schema's simple range descriptions, justifying a score of 4.

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's function: 'Calculate an AI agent trust score using the Works With Agents Trust Score spec v1.0.0-draft.' It names the specific verb, resource, and spec version, distinguishing it from sibling tools like wwa_bidmate_score which focus on bid scoring. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 its usage by stating what it does and the formula, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references are provided. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but it lacks explicit guidance.

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