arp_check

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

The description indicates a read operation ('Retrieves aggregated reputation data') and lists return fields. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on permissions, data freshness, or side effects. The return structure is documented, which is helpful.

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 concise and well-structured, with separate sections for the main purpose, arguments, and returns. It avoids redundancy and is easy to scan.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter), the description covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return structure in detail. It references an output schema and lists specific fields, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 single parameter agent_id is described as 'ID of the agent to check reputation for', adding context beyond the schema's type and title. However, no format or validation details are provided, and schema description coverage is 0%.

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 the action ('Check') and the resource ('agent's reputation score'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like arp_rate (which rates agents) and coc_* (certificate operations).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when to prefer this over other tools like get_trust_evidence or verify_agent_identity.

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