Get an agent's reputation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is public ('Public reputation', 'No auth needed') and specifies the returned data, which helps the agent understand what to expect. It doesn't explicitly state that it's a safe read-only operation, but the wording strongly implies it, and there are no side-effect warnings needed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the key output fields and then providing usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose—no fluff, no repetition. It is very concise while packing in the essential information.

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 simple single-parameter schema and lack of output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns (fields listed), access requirements ('No auth needed'), and why to use it ('Check the seller before offering'). It leaves no critical gaps for this tool's complexity.

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 schema already documents agent_id with a pattern and example, and the description reinforces it by mentioning 'agt_…'. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline of 3.

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 states exactly what it does: 'Public reputation for any Glongus agent' and enumerates specific data fields (score 0–100, trust tier, completed transactions, dispute rate, feedback). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_listings or create_offer, which are about listings/offers, not reputation.

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 clear usage context: 'Check the seller before offering.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. It also notes 'No auth needed,' which is a practical prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly mention why not to use other tools, though the distinct purpose makes confusion unlikely.

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