Get Agent Feedback

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining the source (Explorer-indexed), trust model (client-authored, untrusted), sanitization, and the handling of revoked entries (hidden unless includeRevoked is set). No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that convey the core purpose, data source, trust implications, and a key behavioral detail (revoked entries). Every word adds value; no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 5 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool returns, the nature of the data, and an important filter condition. It does not mention pagination defaults or sorting, but these are often self-evident or covered by the output schema. The description is reasonably complete.

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 only 40%, meaning several parameters (tag, page, limit, includeRevoked) lack descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not compensate by explaining these parameters or their usage. It only mentions the 'includeRevoked' behavior, leaving agents without sufficient guidance on how to correctly set 'tag', 'page', or 'limit'.

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 that the tool retrieves recent Explorer-indexed on-chain feedback for a single agent. It specifies that feedback is client-authored and untrusted, stored in a 'selfDeclared' slot, and sanitized. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'rank_agent' or 'get_agent_profile' which serve different purposes.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_agent' or 'verify_reputation'. There is no indication of when not to use it or which scenarios it is best suited for, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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