resolve_authority

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It does not indicate side effects, permissions required, data freshness, or whether the tool is read-only. The phrase 'Returns tier name...' implies read behavior, but mutation or state changes are not ruled out. For a computation tool, this is a notable gap.

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 sentences: first states purpose, second lists return values. Efficient and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, though some might argue it could be more concise by omitting the return list. Still, minimal waste.

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 annotations or output schema, the description provides the purpose and return fields, which is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage context, behavioral traits, and fails to leverage the schema's descriptions fully. An agent would need more to use it effectively among many sibling tools.

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 descriptions already cover all 3 parameters clearly (agentId, principalId, scope). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which has 100% coverage. The description does mention return fields, which is helpful but not parameter semantics. 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 clearly states the tool computes effective reputation score and authority tier, listing returned fields. It uses a specific verb ('Compute') and resource ('reputation score and authority tier'), making the purpose distinct. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_tier' or 'get_passport_grade', so it's not a perfect 5.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., check_tier, update_reputation). There is no mention of prerequisites, scope constraints, or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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