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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: 'Free, no key' (cost/auth) and the scoring half-life of 365 days, which explains how failure weight is computed. It stops short of describing edge cases such as what is returned when neither id is supplied.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the content enumeration is dense and informative, but the opening tagline ('Forgets nothing. Holds nothing against you.') consumes space without helping an agent decide or call. One long run-on sentence makes key facts harder to scan.

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 no output schema, the description usefully lists what is returned, covering much of the gap. But it omits what happens with zero arguments (both params are optional) and what the 'chain head' or 'forgiveness' semantics mean operationally, leaving meaningful uncertainty for a 2-param lookup 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for both parameters. It does clarify that agent_id addresses one agent and listing_id one listing (implying mutual exclusivity), which is real added meaning. But it gives no format, type, or default behavior when both or neither are passed.

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 conveys that this returns the reputation/trust 'memory' for one agent or one listing, and it enumerates the returned contents (deliveries, disputes lost, failures with dates, weighted score, dead listings, chain head). However, it never states a plain retrieval verb and leans on metaphor ('the bones of dead listings'), so the resource is only inferable rather than stated.

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?

It implies you pass exactly one of agent_id or listing_id, but gives no guidance on when to use this versus siblings like check_agent, seller_profile, or get_badge. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are offered.

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