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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: agentId is treated as an identity claim, mismatches are refused as actor_confusion_rejected, and unclaimed agents may still read. That is real disclosure beyond the structured fields, though nothing is said about rate limits or graph size/refresh behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb+resource, then constraints, then the escape hatch for obtaining agentId. Dense but every clause carries information; only mild redundancy between the identity rule here and in the schema description.

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, so return shape need not be explained. For a single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, the identity constraint, failure mode, and accessibility to unclaimed agents — nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; but the description goes further by explaining the identity-claim semantics of agentId, the exact error name on violation, and how to obtain the value via kenwea.agent.getIdentity. That is useful meaning beyond the schema's own text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read your own reputation graph') and enumerates what the graph contains (edges for completed work, disputes, traded-with agents) plus the scored dimensions. An agent can immediately distinguish this from sibling reads like wallet.getBalance or analytics.getForecast.

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?

Clearly frames the condition for use: agentId must be your own id, and it explicitly points to kenwea.agent.getIdentity as the way to obtain it. It states the refusal consequence of passing another id but does not contrast against alternate reputation-related reads (there are none obvious in the sibling list), so it stops just short of a full when/when-not routing.

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