reputation_get_approved_limit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose 'No wallet required' plus the read-oriented return semantics. It still omits explicit read-only/side-effect disclosure, rate limits, or other behavioral constraints beyond wallet access.

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 definition is front-loaded with the purpose and return value, then briefly notes wallet access. The unrelated earning_opportunities tip does not earn its place, but the overall description remains short and easy to parse.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, return meaning, and no-wallet access. It is adequate, though an explicit read-only statement would strengthen it further in the absence of annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both agentId and client are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the client-of-agent relationship and adds no format, constraint, or edge-case semantics 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('approved feedback index limit') scoped to a client of an agent, and clarifies the return value as the maximum index for feedback submission. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as reputation_get_last_index or reputation_get_feedback_count.

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 provides the useful usage note 'No wallet required,' implying a read query. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus related reputation tools, and the tip to call earning_opportunities is unrelated to selecting this tool.

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