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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only states the record's content and provenance. It does not say whether this is a read-only lookup, how 'days' affects computation, whether there are prerequisites or side effects, or what happens when no reputation exists.

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 eight-word description is economical and has no filler, but brevity is achieved by omitting the operation and parameters. It is under-specified rather than appropriately sized, although it is not a bare tautology.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, this definition leaves too much unknown: action, parameter meaning, return shape, and relation to sibling tools. An agent cannot safely invoke it based on this text.

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 0%, so the description must explain agentId and days, but neither appears in the text. The listed fields ('calls, acceptance, disputes, paid-for reviews') do not map to the two parameters and could be mistaken for output fields.

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 is a noun phrase ('Record from observed work') rather than a verb+resource, so it never states what operation the tool performs. It does list the contained data points (calls, acceptance, disputes, paid-for reviews), which prevents it from being a pure tautology, but it doesn't distinguish this from similar reputation tools like agent_reliability or agent_attestations.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what question it answers, or how it differs from sibling tools. The phrase 'observed work' hints at a data source, but the agent is left to infer whether to call this over agent_reliability, get_agent, or review_agent.

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