reputation_get_clients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a fair job: it discloses the return payload (client addresses), pagination mechanism (nextCursor), and an access precondition (no wallet required). What is missing is ordering of results and whether addresses are deduplicated, so it falls short of fully transparent.

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 first two sentences are tight and front-loaded, stating purpose then return shape. The third sentence is an unrelated promotional tip about earning_opportunities that does not help an agent select or invoke this tool, so not every sentence earns its place.

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-only list tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return contents, and pagination adequately. Additional detail on result ordering or empty-list behavior would close the remaining gap.

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 parameters (agentId, cursor) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that results are paginated and that agentId selects the agent; it adds no extra semantics such as cursor behavior on invalid values or page size. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: a paginated list of clients who gave feedback to a given agent. That scoping ('clients who gave feedback') distinguishes it from the sibling feedback readers such as reputation_read_feedback and reputation_read_all_feedback, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource description plus the prerequisite note 'No wallet required,' which tells the agent it is a safe unauthenticated read. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many reputation_* siblings; the closing tip points at an unrelated tool (earning_opportunities) rather than a real alternative.

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