check_reputation

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

States 'Read-only. Does not modify any data or affect the target agent's score.' Since no annotations are provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits, making it clear this is a safe query operation.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage guidance, safety note, parameter description, and return format. Every sentence is informative and earns its place without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, output schema exists), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, alternatives, behavioral impact, and return structure. It is fully complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 already describes the 'did' parameter completely (100% coverage), including the required format. The description's Args section repeats the same information without adding new semantics or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get the full reputation profile of an agent' and enumerates return components (score, confidence, risk factors, tier). It differentiates from siblings by specifying this is for numerical data, not yes/no decisions (check_trust) or rating history (get_attestations_received).

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 ('when you need the actual numbers') and when not to, with specific alternative tools named ('NOT for yes/no delegation decisions — use check_trust instead', 'NOT for rating history — use get_attestations_received'). This is excellent guidance.

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