get_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. It discloses what is returned (score, CLAW index, etc.) but does not mention any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or rate limits. While the name implies a read operation, more explicit transparency would be beneficial.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the key elements of its output. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and all words are meaningful with no redundancy.

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 compensates by listing the returned fields (score, CLAW index, rank, trust tier, breakdown). It covers the essential information for an agent-reputation retrieval tool with one optional parameter. A slight deduction for not mentioning that the tool is read-only, but overall it is adequate.

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% as the single parameter 'agent_id' is described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely lists output fields. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'reputation summary for an agent', listing specific components like score, CLAW index, rank, trust tier, and breakdown by event type. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_citations or get_profile, which deal with different aspects.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The use case is implied (viewing reputation), but there is no mention of alternatives or context for when this tool is appropriate over others. For a simple retrieval tool, a slightly lower score is warranted due to lack of guidance.

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