reputation_read_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden: it correctly discloses this is a read with 'No wallet required' and enumerates the returned fields (client address, value, decimals, tags, timestamp). It says nothing about behavior on an out-of-range index, ordering of entries, or empty results.

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 is two tight, front-loaded sentences covering purpose and return fields. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities...' is an unrelated ad that does not earn its place and dilutes focus.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the source, the inputs, and the returned fields, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It falls short only on edge cases such as an invalid index or no feedback existing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's 'by index' and 'for an agent' restate the same mapping without adding format, range, or indexing-order semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 — read a specific feedback entry for an agent by index from the ERC-8004 reputation registry — which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like reputation_read_all_feedback and reputation_get_summary. The scope ('a specific ... by index') is precise.

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?

Calling it 'a specific feedback entry ... by index' implies usage versus reading all feedback, but no sibling is named and no when/when-not conditions are stated. The appended tip about earning_opportunities is unrelated cross-promotion, not guidance for this tool.

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