get_attestations_received

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

The description states 'Read-only. Does not affect reputation or stored data', which is a key behavioral trait. Since no annotations were provided, the description fully covers the safety profile and ordering ('newest first').

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose, what is returned, exclusions and alternatives, read-only note, arguments, and returns. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately concise.

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 output schema exists (context signals indicate has output schema), the description still explains return fields (from_agent_did, outcome, weight, context, created_at) and ordering. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter fully.

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?

The input schema already describes the 'did' parameter with 100% coverage. The description's 'Args' section adds a format example ('did:key:z6Mk...') and context, providing useful but not essential extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 it gets peer ratings (attestations) received by an agent and explains what is returned (individual ratings with who gave them, outcome, weight, context). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly saying what it is NOT for and naming alternative tools (get_audit_trail, check_reputation).

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use ('Use this to understand the evidence behind a score') and when-not-to-use ('NOT for protocol-level events... NOT for the computed score') with direct references to alternative tools (get_audit_trail, check_reputation).

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