registry_tool_badge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the two behavioral facts that matter most for a lookup — public (no auth) and free (no cost). It says nothing about the score's scale, freshness, or error behavior when a tool_id is unknown.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the access constraint. No filler, though the bracket prefix adds little.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could have explained what the 'composite reliability score' actually is (scale, inputs, freshness). For a simple one-param read tool the core need is met, but the return value is left entirely to inference.

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 100% and the single tool_id parameter is already documented as 'The tool's Wicked Registry id.' The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource and attribute — a tool's current composite reliability score — which clearly separates it from siblings like registry_tool_detail or registry_search_tools. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase ('returns/gets'), but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

'Public and free' implies no barrier to use, but there is no statement of when to reach for this versus registry_tool_detail (which presumably returns the full record). No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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