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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses weighting by reviewer reputation, exclusion of self-reviews, and the inflation delta metric. However, it does not state that this is a read-only operation or mention any permissions or side effects.

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose and outputs, though the phrasing is somewhat dense. It is concise and front-loaded with the essential verb.

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 the tool's complexity (weighted scoring, inflation delta) and lack of output schema, the description omits return structure details and how to interpret inflationDelta. It also does not explain the address parameter's input requirements beyond the schema regex.

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 only parameter 'address' is not explained in the description; its role (likely the contract or subject address) must be inferred from context. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add meaning but fails to do so for the parameter.

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 computes a reviewer-reputation-weighted ERC-8004 feedback score, detailing sybil resistance and the specific outputs (rawAvg, weightedRating, inflationDelta). This differentiates it from sibling scoring tools like mainstreet_score (likely unweighted) and mainstreet_scores_batch.

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 for weighted, sybil-resistant scores but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like mainstreet_score or mainstreet_collusion. No direct when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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