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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: how the score is accrued (on-platform activity), the penalty for circular funding, and the 'well-formed zeros' response for unscored wallets. This goes beyond mere annotation repetition and helps the agent understand the tool's behavior and output nuances.

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 description is efficient and well-structured. The first sentence is a clear summary, followed by a compact enumeration of return fields and a note on behavior. No filler or repetition; every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the tool's essence and additional details are logically ordered.

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?

The description covers the return fields extensively, including gates and penalties, and even notes the behavior for unscored wallets. The only gap is the lack of explicit parameter documentation, but since the output schema is present (as indicated by the context signal) and the main parameter is obvious, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It could still benefit from mentioning the caller_id parameter or any possible error conditions, but overall it is near-complete.

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 compensate. It implicitly makes clear that 'wallet_address' is the key input (by describing a wallet's score), but it does not explicitly describe either parameter. The optional 'caller_id' is not mentioned at all, and there is no guidance on formats or expectations. Given the required parameter is self-explanatory, the description partially compensates, but the lack of explicit parameter documentation prevents a higher score.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving a wallet's Crank Score reputation breakdown. It specifies the resource (wallet) and the exact output fields (total_score, components, sybil_flagged, gates, etc.), distinguishing it from the many sibling get_* tools by naming the specific 'Crank Score' concept. No ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'FREE read' but does not explain the difference from other score-related tools like get_score or get_my_contribution_score, nor does it specify conditions (e.g., 'use this when you need the full breakdown'). An agent would have to infer usage from the purpose, which is not ideal given the large sibling set.

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