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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'look up' strongly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, and the mention of 'computed reputation score shown on sweeps' adds context about the data source. It does not explicitly state error behavior or permissions, but for a simple lookup this is adequate.

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 main action ('Look up a DID's standing') and then lists the specific returned data. Every element serves a purpose with no redundancy, earning a top score for conciseness.

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-only lookup with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (drops, contradictions, identity age, reputation score). The agent can successfully invoke the tool based on this information alone, and no critical details are missing.

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% and the parameter (did) is already clearly documented as a did:key DID. The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, so it does not exceed what the schema provides. 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 clearly states the verb 'look up' and the resource (a DID's standing), and lists specific metrics (drops, contradictions, identity age, reputation score). This distinguishes it from sibling action tools like drop, sweep, and contradict, making its 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 context clearly implies this is the read-only lookup tool among siblings that perform actions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or include exclusions, so it falls short of a full 5. The description's focus on retrieval makes the usage obvious to an agent.

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