azeth_get_cross_chain_reputation

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

Without annotations, the description fully covers behavioral aspects: it states the tool is read-only, requires no private key or gas, and notes that values only update when a storage proof is submitted (azeth_prove_reputation). This provides essential transparency about side effects and limitations.

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: a clear title, usage guidance, return description, a behavioral note, and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return format (aggregate, per-chain breakdown, human-readable summary) and the update mechanism. For a read-only query tool with moderate complexity, this provides sufficient completeness.

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 the schema already documents parameters (from, to, l1Chain). The description adds an example usage and a note about l1Chain defaults, but does not substantially enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get L1-proven cross-chain payment reputation between two accounts from TrustL2Reader.' It identifies the specific resource (cross-chain payment reputation) and action (get), and distinguishes from sibling tools like azeth_get_net_paid and azeth_get_weighted_reputation by emphasizing cross-chain and L1-proven aspects.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use this when: you want the trust-weighted net USD one account has provably paid another across all registered L2 chains, as visible on Ethereum L1.' It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, but the context is specific enough to guide appropriate use.

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