soma_agents

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. 'Публичная витрина доверия' usefully signals that the data is public and trust-oriented, implying a read-only, unauthenticated access pattern, but nothing is said about scope, result size, pagination, or freshness of the registry.

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 terse fragments that front-load the resource and then the content, with no filler. It is perhaps slightly too terse to be self-sufficient, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no inputs and an output schema present, the description only needs to convey what the tool is for and roughly what it yields — both are covered. The one omission is how it relates to the registration and reputation siblings.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify at parameter level. Baseline 4 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 — a registry of agents — and enumerates what it exposes (who is registered, capabilities, price). That is clearly distinct from the write-side sibling soma_register, although the contrast is only implicit rather than stated.

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?

No indication of when to call this versus soma_register, soma_reputation, or soma_stats, all of which plausibly overlap with 'who is registered and what they can do'. The agent must infer the choice from names alone.

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