get_identity_reputation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results aggregate this adapter plus mirrored Base and Arc history, and the exposed numbers are the exact quantities the reputation gates consume rather than a derived display score.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the special-case routing instruction comes last where it belongs. Slightly dense phrasing ('exact score sum that reputation gates use') but still economical.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably: it specifies the three outputs (paid jobs, score sum, average) and the cross-chain aggregation scope. The remaining gap is the unresolved overlap with get_agent_reputation, which an agent cannot settle from this text.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both agentId and humanWallet including the agentId=0 rule and formats. The description only restates the human/agentId-0 case without adding syntax or constraints, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource and pins down exactly what is returned: the paid jobs, the exact score sum behind the minJobs/minAvgScore gates, and the average. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_agent_reputation', which sounds like it could return the same thing.

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?

It gives one concrete routing rule (use agentId 0 with a wallet for a human with no identity), which is genuine when-to-use guidance. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over get_agent_reputation or get_identity, which is the most likely source of misselection given the sibling list.

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