lookup_reputation

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

No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the output contents (feedback history, etc.) but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether permissions are needed, or any data freshness or limitation. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 two sentences long with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and then lists what it shows. While concise, it could benefit from bullet points or a more structured format, but it is efficient.

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 no output schema, the description lists three key components of the response, which helps set expectations. However, it lacks details on the output structure, pagination, or data freshness. For a simple one-parameter tool, it is moderately complete but not exhaustive.

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 0% schema description coverage and only one required parameter, the description fails to explain that 'address' is the Ethereum address of the agent. The schema provides only a regex pattern, and the description adds no semantic meaning, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.

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 looks up an AI agent's on-chain reputation and lists specific components (ERC-8004 feedback history, attestation count, community signals). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_score or get_attestations, though it could explicitly name alternatives.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_attestations or check_scam. It implies it aggregates multiple signals, but no exclusions or situational advice are provided.

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