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

No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral info. It states 'No auth needed', which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it doesn't disclose read-only nature, rate limits, or other side effects. Given the tool is simple, this is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Description is very short (9 words) but lacks necessary detail. It is concise in length but not in substance; important information about parameters and usage is omitted. Not all sentences earn their place because there is only one.

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 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to document parameter meaning, return format, or provide any examples. The agent would need additional context to use the tool correctly.

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 does not mention or explain the parameters (agentId, domain) at all. The enum values for domain are not described. This is a significant gap.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool retrieves an agent's ASM reputation across domains and mentions accuracy. It implies a read operation but lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'. Still, purpose is clear enough for an agent.

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?

Only says 'No auth needed' which suggests it can be used without authentication, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_reputation_leaderboard. No context on when not to use it.

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