reputation_get_last_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that no wallet is required, which is real behavioral context for a chain-facing tool, and 'Get' implies a read. It says nothing about whether the call fails when the client has never submitted feedback, or what the returned value looks like.

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 core sentence is efficient and front-loaded. The second sentence is an unrelated promotional tip about earning_opportunities that does not help an agent invoke this tool, so it does not earn 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 with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the no-wallet constraint. It omits what a 'feedback index' is used for downstream (e.g., revoke_feedback or append_response) and behavior when no feedback exists, leaving real gaps for a reputation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with both client (Stacks address pattern) and agentId fully documented in the schema. The description restates the two roles but adds no format, edge-case, or sentinel-value guidance beyond the schema. 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: 'Get the last feedback index submitted by a specific client for an agent.' An agent can tell this returns a single index value scoped to a client-agent pair. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as reputation_get_feedback_count or reputation_read_feedback, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'No wallet required' gives a useful precondition, implying this is a free read path where sibling reputation write tools would need a wallet. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-an-alternative guidance among the many reputation_* siblings. The trailing tip pointing at earning_opportunities is unrelated to choosing this tool.

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