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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining analytical behavior: it returns a count of marked records, distinct addresses, and the share from the busiest writer. It also gives a concrete sample statistic to illustrate why raw record counts can mislead about opinions. No contradiction with the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose before the clarifying caveat and return summary. The sample statistic is slightly detailed but earns its place by reinforcing why this tool measures authorship rather than opinion volume. No redundancy.

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 read-only analysis tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return semantics: marked count, distinct addresses, and busiest-writer share. It could specify behavior for invalid token IDs or unsupported chains, but the annotations and schema cover the essential invocation context.

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%, with chainId and tokenId already documented in the schema. The description provides useful domain context about ERC-8004 and BSC records, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already communicates for either parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Report who wrote an agent's ERC-8004 feedback." It also distinguishes itself from a mere quantity tool by explicitly saying it is "not how much of it there is," making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description clearly frames when this tool is appropriate: when you care about authorship of feedback rather than aggregate volume. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the contrast with "not how much" provides usable selection guidance.

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