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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond them: the output is 'reputation-building', sourced from 'verified work and operator state', and never recommends or prepares trades. This prevents misinterpretations about what kind of suggestion can be returned, without being verbose.

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?

Two sentences accomplish all the work: the first conveys the main purpose, and the second is a crisp disambiguation clause against trade-related tools. Absolutely no fluff, and the verb and resource are front-loaded.

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?

Given one tokenId parameter, an output schema, and annotations, the description is largely sufficient: it defines the return type (next action), the kind of action (reputation-building, non-trade), and the data source. The only minor gap is not stating a direct 'use this when you need...' condition to distinguish from nearby getter tools, but this is not material for a simple lookup.

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 single parameter tokenId is fully described in the schema ('NFH token id'), so the schema already carries 100% of the parameter meaning and the description does not invest any additional information about how to use it. 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 is highly specific: 'Return one reputation-building next move' identifies a clear action and result, while 'from verified work and operator state' adds the resource scope. The explicit 'Never recommends or prepares trades' differentiates it from prepare_* trade siblings, even though sibling names aren't named.

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: when you need a safe, non-trade next action for an NFH. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this tool over getter siblings like get_agent_public_brain or list_accepted_work, and no 'use instead of' guidance beyond the trade exclusion.

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