four02_reputation_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the operation is read-only and lists exactly what the snapshot contains, which is genuinely useful. It omits behavior for an unknown or nonexistent agentId, aggregation window for 'total events'/'last event time', and any rate-limit or staleness caveats.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and source, then enumerates outputs, then closes with the safety trait. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and declares read-only, which is essentially the whole contract for a one-parameter read tool. It stops short of documenting edge-case behavior for invalid agentIds or the timeframe semantics of 'total events'.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage ('ERC-8004 agent ID (decimal string)'), the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description mentions agentId only as the input subject and adds no format, validation, or lookup semantics beyond the schema, so the 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?

Names a specific resource (commerce reputation snapshot), the exact source (Four02ReputationRegistry on Ink), and enumerates the returned dimensions (reliability, dispute rate, arbitration record, total events, last event time). The phrase 'one-shot snapshot' cleanly distinguishes it from the narrower siblings four02_reputation_reliability and four02_reputation_history.

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?

'One-shot ... snapshot' implies this aggregates what the sibling reputation tools return individually, and 'read-only' sets the safety expectation. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over four02_reputation_reliability or four02_reputation_history, so the routing is left to inference.

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