reputation_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Search/rank' implies a read-only query operation, which is meaningful signal, but it omits pagination behavior beyond the raw limit param, auth/permission requirements, and the shape of results.

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 tight sentences with the verb and ranking dimensions front-loaded; no padding. The '[Wicked Reputation]' prefix is minor branding noise but does not obscure the core statement.

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 an 8-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is being queried but says nothing about return format or result shape. The 100% schema coverage compensates for the filter documentation, but the missing output-schema burden is not picked up.

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%, so the schema already documents all 8 filters including the sort prefix convention and limit range. The description's 'every filter is a typed query param' adds no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Search/rank) and resource (registered agents) with the dimensions being ranked (tier, stake, reputation, slash history). However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like reputation_status, reputation_statement, reputation_tiers, or reputation_transparency, so an agent cannot tell which reputation tool to pick from the description alone.

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 only usage hint is 'Every filter is a typed query param,' which describes the schema rather than when to use the tool. There is no mention of when this is preferred over the sibling reputation_* tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria.

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