Get Trust Score

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: it lists the exact components (adoption_rate, peer_validation, etc.), their maximum points, and that violation penalties exist. This gives the agent a concrete picture of the response contents, which the annotations do not provide. There is no contradiction.

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 a single sentence that is somewhat long but well-structured. It front-loads the primary action, then lists components in a scannable format, and finishes with a usage tip. Every clause adds value: none are filler. It could be slightly shorter, but it is efficient for the information conveyed.

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?

For a read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, this description is complete. It explains what is returned (the trust score breakdown and its components), includes point values, and states that violation penalties are included. It also provides actionable guidance for the user. There are no gaps that would prevent an agent from calling this tool correctly.

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 schema is empty and schema_description_coverage is 100% by default. There are no parameters for the description to explain. Per calibration, this earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-related content, which is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full trust score breakdown for this agent'), and enumerates the exact components with point values. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on trust scoring, which no other tool name mentions. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 advises when to use the tool: 'to find the fastest path to the next tier' and identifies the decision heuristic ('the lowest component is usually the best lever'). It does not name alternative tools directly, but the context of sibling tools makes the use case clear. This is solid guidance, though it could be more explicit about when not to use it or which alternative to prefer.

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