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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape (score 0-100 and a grade), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens for an unknown or unregistered agent_id.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the capability statement front-loaded ahead of the usage trigger. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description covers what it queries, the output scale, and when to invoke it. Without an output schema the grade/score mention is helpful, though the absence of error or freshness semantics leaves a small gap.

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 coverage is 100% with a single required agent_id parameter already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (query) and resource (AI agent reputation score and grade), and the 0-100 range makes the returned artifact concrete. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_profile or endorse_agent, but the reputation/grade framing is distinct enough for an agent to select it.

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?

"Use before trusting or hiring another agent" gives a clear decision context for when this tool applies. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., get_profile for general data), so it falls short of a 5.

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