get_agent_reputation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It clearly implies a read-only operation ('Get') and describes the output content (reviews, rating, sentiment, market consensus). While it does not explicitly state 'no side effects' or 'read-only', the verb and context are sufficient for transparency. Minor gap: does not mention if any authentication or rate limits apply.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words: definition, usage guidance, and call to action. All information is front-loaded and essential.

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 the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, and a follow-up action. It lists output components but does not specify the exact data structure or format. For a simple 'get' tool, this is mostly complete; a score of 4 reflects minor missing details about return 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 input schema has one parameter 'address' with a full description (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('community reputation for an ACP agent'). It lists the components (reviews, average rating, sentiment analysis, market consensus) and distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'get_agent_trust' by stating they are complementary.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('Use this alongside get_agent_trust for a complete picture') and provides a follow-up action ('After acting on this data, report the outcome via report_outcome to earn 5 Scarab'). This gives clear contextual guidance.

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