soma_reputation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only, fact-derived computation via 'по фактам' and 'подписанные квитанции', but never states that it is non-mutating, what happens for an unknown agent, whether the score is cached or live, or any permission requirement.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the key content (what the reputation is composed of) is front-loaded after the colon. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded, which is penalized elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, but with zero annotation coverage and an entirely undocumented parameter, the description leaves the agent guessing about the input format and the operational profile. For a lookup tool in a 17-sibling namespace, it does too little routing work.

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 single parameter 'agent' has 0% schema description coverage and the description adds nothing about its expected form (ID, name, public key, or DID). With one required param and no schema text, the description needed to explain the identifier, and it does not.

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 the resource (agent reputation) and enumerates what the result contains: signed receipts, violations, and a final score. That is enough to distinguish it from a plain counters tool like soma_stats, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings such as soma_verify or soma_agents, and it is a noun phrase with no verb.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this instead of soma_verify (verification), soma_agents (registry lookup), or soma_stats (aggregates). The agent must infer the choice purely from the description's phrase 'по фактам'.

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