check_reputation

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

Explicitly states 'Read-only. Does not modify any data or affect the target agent's score.' No annotations provided, so description fully covers behavioral expectations transparently.

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?

Description is well-organized: purpose, not-for sections, read-only note, args, returns. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Front-loaded with main purpose.

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 single parameter, full schema coverage, output schema provided, and sibling context, the description is complete. It explains return values and usage boundaries.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage of the single parameter 'did' with description and example. The description repeats that info without adding new meaning, so baseline of 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 gets the full reputation profile (score, confidence, risk factors, tier) and distinguishes it from siblings like check_trust and get_attestations_received. The verb 'get' aligns with the read-only nature.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (need actual numbers) and when not to use (use check_trust for yes/no decisions, get_attestations_received for rating history). Provides clear alternatives.

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