erc8004_get_feedback

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns an 'aggregate' summary and allows 'optional tag filters', which is useful but not deeply behavioral. It does not disclose return format, default behavior without tags, or how tag filtering combines (AND/OR). Given annotation coverage, a score of 3 credits the minimal additional context.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Get aggregate ERC-8004 reputation summary') and follows with the optional qualifier ('for an agent with optional tag filters'). No wasted words, clear structure.

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?

This is a simple query tool with four parameters, a full schema, and readOnly/openWorld annotations. The description, combined with the schema and annotations, provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect (an aggregate summary). A small gap is that no output schema exists, so the description could clarify what 'summary' contains, but given the low complexity and annotation coverage, the overall context is complete enough.

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%: all four parameters have descriptions (agentId as 'Agent token ID', tag1/tag2 as 'Filter by tag N', chainId as 'Target chain ID (default from runtime config)'). The description's mention of 'optional tag filters' merely confirms the schema. It adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's function: 'Get aggregate ERC-8004 reputation summary for an agent with optional tag filters.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('aggregate ERC-8004 reputation summary'), and adds scope ('for an agent with optional tag filters'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like erc8004_get_agent, which likely returns individual agent details, and erc8004_submit_feedback, which writes feedback.

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: if you need an aggregate reputation summary with optional tag filtering, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly list when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or provide guidance on how it differs from erc8004_get_agent. The usage context is only implied by the wording, not explicitly stated.

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