get_agent_reputation

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: it discloses that mirrored Base/Arc data is relayed rather than trustless and that history is adapter-local, which materially affects how much the caller should trust the result. It still says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown agentId.

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?

One dense sentence enumerating the returned components, followed by a short provenance caveat that earns its place. Front-loaded with the resource and no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of listing what is returned, and it adds the trust caveat about mirrored data. The only gaps are edge behavior (unknown agentId, empty history) and any differentiation from the sibling reputation tool.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents agentId (pattern, decimal integer, example '48'). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the full reputation picture of an ERC-8004 identity') and enumerates the concrete components returned, so the agent knows exactly what this retrieves. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_identity_reputation', which sounds like it covers similar ground, leaving the agent to guess which to call.

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?

Usage is only implied: the caller supplies an agentId and receives reputation data. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing away from the similarly named 'get_identity_reputation' sibling.

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