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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries real added value by disclosing that the tool is disabled in this version and gated on agreements. That is a behavioral fact an agent cannot infer from the schema or annotations, though nothing is said about the return payload.

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?

Two short fragments with no padding, and the critical availability constraint is included rather than buried. It reads as terse but functional, though the first fragment is a noun phrase rather than a sentence.

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 tool that is explicitly disabled, minimal content is reasonable and the key constraint is present. Still, with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves the required resource_id entirely unexplained.

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?

There is exactly one parameter (resource_id) with a name but no schema description (0% coverage), and the description never mentions it. The agent gets no information about what identifier to supply, so the single parameter is undocumented everywhere.

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 ('reputation') and qualifies it ('verified-trade'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_post or list_offers. However, there is no verb and no statement of what is actually retrieved or for whom, so the purpose is only implied.

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?

'Disabled in this version (requires agreements)' is a genuine when-not-to-use signal, which is valuable routing information. It stops short of naming what to use instead or what the 'agreements' prerequisite means operationally.

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