Get requester reputation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states the high-level metric (created vs. awarded) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the exact return format is, or any potential side effects or prerequisites. The absence of an output schema amplifies this gap.

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 extremely concise at two sentences. The first sentence states the core function, and the second adds valuable usage context. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description leaves several gaps: it doesn't specify the return shape, whether the stats are for a given address, or any time scope. It provides enough to understand the purpose but not enough to fully anticipate the tool's behavior or output format.

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?

The schema has one parameter, 'address', with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description never explicitly maps the address parameter to the requester, nor explains what values are valid. The tool name and context imply the address is the requester's, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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 what the tool does: it reports the count of tasks created vs. actually awarded by a requester. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle task search, creation, or award actions. However, it does not explicitly use a verb like 'get' or name the specific resource (requester address) beyond the tool name, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides clear, actionable usage guidance: use it before trusting a requester's task, and before using your own requester history as a signal. This implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the top score.

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