Verify Reputation

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds significant context about the contract's limitations (holes, bounded reachability), the fact that checks return unavailable with explicit scope, and clarifies that it does not call get_summary. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 relatively long and technical, explaining underlying contract mechanics. While it provides necessary context, it could be more concise for quick comprehension. The front-loaded content is clear, but the detail level might hinder readability.

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 complexity of the tool and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately explains the tool's behavior and limitations. However, it does not mention return value structure, relying on the output schema.

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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter 'agent' with detailed types and descriptions. The description does not add extra parameter information, so a 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 that the tool is for reputation observation of a single agent, using a fail-closed approach. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying that it does not call get_summary or claim a diff, but it could more explicitly differentiate from rank_agent and similar tools.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rank_agent or leaderboard. It implies a scenario where reputation verification is needed but lacks guidance on when not to use it or what prerequisites are required.

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