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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description never confirms that this is a pure read, nor explains why a read-only tool would take a 'proof' parameter. Nothing is said about permissions, scope (self vs. others), or what the returned points represent. The 'proof' param raises an unaddressed question about whether calling it records something.

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?

It is short, but the trailing ellipsis signals an unfinished thought rather than deliberate brevity. One clause establishes scope, but no follow-on sentence delivers the actionable detail.

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?

Placeholder for dimension 6.

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% and the description does not mention 'key' or 'proof' at all. Neither parameter's meaning, format, or requirement status is explained anywhere the agent can see, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 names the resource loosely ('your contribution and your share of the whole') and hints at the data behind it ('points from reviewed arguments and accepted reviews'), which is more than a restatement of the name. But it never says what the tool actually returns or how it relates to the many scoring/reputation siblings like whoami or account_get. It trails off with an ellipsis, leaving the purpose only half-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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus related tools such as account_get, whoami, or trust_show. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of what the 'key' and 'proof' inputs imply about when the call is appropriate.

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