Agentic Reputation Gateway

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 'stateless' and 'no-outreach' as behavioral context, but it does not disclose any additional side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. It provides some value beyond annotations but not rich detail.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Returns') and packs the core outcome into a compact, readable format. Every term contributes meaning, even if the meaning is somewhat technical.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description effectively communicates what the agent can expect to obtain. It covers the main outputs and is consistent with the provided annotations. However, it lacks any usage context or elaboration on the 'protected-runtime boundary', but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered vacuously. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly omits parameter details since there are none to explain. No additional semantic value is needed or provided.

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 the specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource as 'gateway safety status', giving concrete aspects (stateless, product-owned, no-outreach posture, protected-runtime boundary). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like route_valve or next_action, which focus on different domains. However, the jargon is somewhat opaque, reducing immediate clarity.

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 use this tool versus its alternatives. The description only states what it returns, with no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context on when to invoke it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is established. The description adds value by specifying the content scope of what is returned, which is relevant for agent expectations. It is consistent with annotations and introduces no contradictions, though it could elaborate on the return format.

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 a single, focused sentence that begins with the action and resource, then lists topics. Every word adds value, and it is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return value by listing topics. It could be slightly more explicit about the curriculum's format or structure, but given the low complexity and strong annotations, it is sufficiently 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?

There are zero parameters, so the empty schema is appropriately simple. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It correctly focuses on the return value rather than inputs.

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 verb 'Returns' and the resource 'product-owned curriculum', followed by a specific list of content areas (durable key identity, consent, recognized work, signed receipts, next-action handoff, and D1/D7 retention). This scope is distinct from sibling tools like retention_plan or next_action, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. However, the name and content imply that it is used when the agent needs the curriculum on durable reputation, providing minimal implied guidance but no clear criteria for differentiation.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns 'supported count status' and 'separate verified-flow and relevance rankings,' but does not explain pagination, data freshness, or what 'supported count status' means. With annotations in place, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with 'Returns,' but the dense jargon ('evidence-bound', 'machine-native distribution surfaces') makes it less concise than it could be. Every phrase contributes information, but clarity suffers from over-packaging.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value. It lists several components (platforms, surfaces, status, rankings) but does not clarify their structure or meaning. The description is somewhat cryptic, leaving an agent without full context to use the tool effectively.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema completely describes this (coverage 100%). Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information. It neither helps nor hurts.

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 ('Returns') and names a clear resource ('agent-generation and launch platforms' related to the agent-generation market), distinguishing it from siblings like gateway_status or route_valve. However, terms like 'evidence-bound' and 'machine-native distribution surfaces' are vague jargon, slightly muddying the exact purpose.

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 implies the tool is used to retrieve market platforms and rankings, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or mentions alternatives. There is no exclusion context, so an agent must infer usage from the return-value description alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by explicitly listing excluded operations (registration, submission, messaging, external writes) and clarifying the output is a single 'bounded' action, which goes beyond the annotation safety profile.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and key constraints without extraneous wording. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description should describe the return value more concretely. It says 'one bounded next action' but doesn't explain what a next action looks like or how it relates to the enums. Still, the read-only nature and core behavior are clear, so it's minimally viable.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only echoes the parameter names ('valve and lifecycle stage') without explaining the meaning of the enums or how parameters interact. This adds little beyond the schema and leaves the agent without enough semantic detail.

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 it 'Returns one bounded next action' for a valve and lifecycle stage, specifying the verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like route_valve or route_reputation_skill, which imply different operations.

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 mentions that it does not perform registration, submission, messaging, or external writes, which implies use for read-only planning. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusion conditions referencing sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond these: the result is 'receipt-bound' and retention claims are explicitly withheld when a genuine verified activation cohort does not exist, which is a meaningful edge-case behavior not captured by 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 a single sentence and front-loads the core purpose, making it concise and structurally sound. However, terms like 'receipt-bound' and 'genuine verified activation cohort' are jargon-heavy and could be clearer, slightly reducing readability.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description must convey what the agent can expect. It explains the high-level return concept and a critical caveat, but it does not specify what the returned 'definitions' contain or how the withholding of claims is represented in the response. This leaves some ambiguity but is adequate for a relatively simple read-only tool.

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?

The schema provides a single 'valve' parameter with an enum, but the description offers no additional meaning for the enum values (colloquium, open_standing, agentic_substrate_prelaunch). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but only repeats that the operation applies to 'one valve' without clarifying the semantic distinctions.

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 action ('Returns') and the specific resource ('receipt-bound D1 and D7 definitions') for one valve. It also highlights a unique withholding behavior that distinguishes it from sibling tools like route_valve and gateway_status.

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 intended use is implied rather than explicit: an agent would use this when needing D1/D7 retention definitions for a valve. However, there is no direct statement of when to use it vs alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions for choosing another tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying 'without registering, messaging, or submitting anything' and guarantees 'exactly one' result, reinforcing the read-only nature in domain-specific terms. No contradiction with 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the core behavior and limitation. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple tool with one enum parameter and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the return value ('exactly one of...') and the lack of side effects. Minor gap: it does not explicitly state the output format (e.g., that it returns the skill string directly), but this is strongly implied.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the three possible values in natural language: 'Agentic Substrate training, reputation creation, or reputation maintenance and renewal', which maps directly to the enum. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema by providing descriptive labels and clarifies the sole parameter's purpose.

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: it returns exactly one of three specified reputation-related skills. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting the absence of side effects ('without registering, messaging, or submitting anything'), which aligns with the title and separates it from tools like learn_reputation or route_valve.

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 implies a use case (pure routing decision without side effects) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like learn_reputation or route_valve are not mentioned, and no when/when-not conditions are provided. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already provide the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds the specific return data categories, which is useful context. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling or response shape, but the strong annotations lower the bar.

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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns...') and includes only necessary details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should describe return values. It lists four categories of returned data but does not specify their structure or types. Annotations cover safety, and the tool's scope is simple (one parameter), so the description is adequate but not thorough.

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 clarifies that the valve parameter is a single named valve, but it does not explain the meaning of the enum values (colloquium, open_standing, agentic_substrate_prelaunch), leaving the agent to infer their semantics from names alone.

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 it 'Returns the current machine entry points, countable outcome, next action, and claim boundary for exactly one named valve,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a single named valve and listing multiple return elements, unlike a tool like next_action.

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 implies usage when a specific valve is named and its details are needed, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling tools like next_action or route_reputation_skill. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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