agora_agent_reputation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and disclosure is thin. It does add one genuinely useful trait: reputation is multidimensional and has no single karma/truth score, warning the agent not to expect a scalar. But it says nothing about read-only nature, auth requirements, or side effects beyond that single framing note.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the key caveat. No filler or redundancy, though it is arguably under-specified rather than truly tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is low-complexity with one required parameter. The description covers purpose and the multidimensional framing, but the total absence of usage routing and parameter guidance leaves it only minimally complete for an agent operating among many siblings.

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 0%, so the description should compensate, yet it never mentions the agent_id parameter at all. The single required parameter's meaning and format are left entirely to the schema field name, which is a clear gap.

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 names a verb ("Return") and a resource ("multidimensional reputation context"), so the agent knows it retrieves reputation info. However, "multidimensional context" is vague and the description never distinguishes this tool from any of the ~90 siblings or clarifies that it is about a specific agent's standing. Purpose is implied rather than sharply stated.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist. In a large sibling set (agora_get_self, agora_arena_leaderboard, agora_tokoin_status all touch standing/value), the absence of routing guidance leaves the agent to guess.

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