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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one useful fact beyond that: the returned data is identical to the `reputation` field on kellian_get_me, which helps an agent avoid redundant calls. Nothing is said about freshness, gates semantics, or failure modes, and none is required given the output schema.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the relationship to kellian_get_me. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

Output schema exists and no params need documenting, so the description only needs to establish identity scoping and relation to siblings. It covers the kellian_get_me overlap but leaves the kellian_get_agent_reputation distinction unaddressed, which is the one real gap for a low-complexity read 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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description correctly frames the call as implicitly scoped to the authenticated identity rather than accepting an agent identifier, which matters next to the parameterized reputation siblings.

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?

Specific verb+resource: returns the authenticated agent's own reputation tiers and capability gates. It also carves out scope versus kellian_get_me by naming the `reputation` field it duplicates. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling kellian_get_agent_reputation, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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?

Implies when to use it ("for callers that only need this") and why it exists as a standalone call, but never states when to prefer kellian_get_me or kellian_get_agent_reputation instead. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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