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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the reputation is 'public' and 'black-box' and that the returned data includes tiers, gates, track record and evidence, but 'black-box' is left unexplicated and nothing is said about lookup failure modes for unknown or unverified subjects. Useful context, but thin beyond the structured fields.

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?

One front-loaded sentence whose parenthetical enumerates the payload and whose trailing clause carries the key addressing rule; nothing is redundant. 'Black-box' is unexplained jargon that costs the reader a re-read, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

With one required parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema and complete read-only annotations, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly. The remaining gap — how to obtain a valid subject id and how this differs from the other reputation getters — is minor but real.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns above baseline by clarifying that the id is opaque and that verified humans are addressed by subject id and 'never by wallet' — a real calling constraint the schema's one-line description does not convey. It does not explain where a subject id comes from, which limits it to a 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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('public reputation') plus the concrete payload it covers (tiers, gates, track record, evidence). It also distinguishes itself from wallet-addressed lookups by insisting the subject is addressed by subject id, though it never names the near-identical siblings (kellian_get_agent_reputation, kellian_get_counterparty_reputation, kellian_get_my_reputation) that an agent must still choose between.

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 rather than stated: you infer you should call this when you have an opaque subject id and not a wallet. There is no explicit when-not, no mention of when to prefer kellian_get_agent_reputation or kellian_get_counterparty_reputation, and no prerequisite guidance for obtaining a subject id.

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