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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it explains the decision logic (high trust → shorter timelock, low trust → longer timelock, caution → don't proceed) and the type of output (go/no-go with escrow parameters). It clearly frames the tool as a pre-payment check. It does not explicitly state whether the call has side effects or requires special permissions, but the description implies it is an advisory read-only check.

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 concise and well-structured: a hook question, a clear statement of what it returns, bullet points for the decision tiers, and a direct usage directive. Every sentence earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return type (go/no-go with escrow parameters) and the three possible outcomes. It also provides usage sequence relative to sibling tools. It does not give an exact output format or error handling, but for a simple query tool it is reasonably complete.

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% for both parameters, so the description adds minimal semantic value. The intended_amount_usdc is described in the schema as 'helps calibrate the recommendation,' and the description does not add further detail about how it affects the recommendation or the escrow parameters.

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: a pre-payment trust check that returns a go/no-go decision with recommended escrow protection parameters. It uses a specific verb ('Check', 'Returns') and resource (payment decision), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning it as the tool to call before escrow_create or safe_pay.

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 explicitly says to call this tool BEFORE escrow_create or safe_pay, providing clear usage context. It also notes that it is 'Unlike other trust services,' which helps differentiate it. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use the other trust-related siblings (e.g., trust_score_query, trust_onchain_quick) instead, leaving some ambiguity.

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