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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses the deduplication rule ('counting each paying wallet once (its latest)'), enumerates the returned metrics, and adds a crucial trust caveat that scores are self-reported and not attested.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then expands into return details and a caveat. It is somewhat long because it enumerates metrics in a single dense sentence, but every element is relevant given the absence of an output schema.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is aggregated, how wallets are counted, which metrics are returned, and the limitation of self-reported data. An agent has enough information to invoke it 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 100%, so the sole parameter service_id is already fully documented with an example. The description only refers to querying 'a service' generally and adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get aggregated quality scores for a service.' It also clarifies the data source ('past verifications and reports') and aggregation rule, making the tool's purpose clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like health or verify_outcome.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'based on past verifications and reports' and the focus on aggregated service quality, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as health or verify_outcome, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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