check_agent_reputation

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

With no annotations supplied, the description takes on the safety burden and does so explicitly: 'Read-only; cannot move funds' and the 'devnet' qualifier warn the agent it is a safe lookup on test data. It stops short of covering error behavior, rate limits, or what happens with an unknown seller.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the temporal trigger 'Use BEFORE paying' and closing with the safety guarantee. Every sentence carries distinct 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the return payload (score, tier, confidence, 5 vetting checks, proceed/do_not_pay). Combined with the documented parameters and stated safety profile, an agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no meaning for the 'policy' enum (standard/strict/off) — the one place where a sentence of explanation would genuinely help — and only loosely gestures at 'seller' via the prose.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('looks up Routex402 verified payment reputation') and names the target ('AI agent or Solana seller'), plus enumerates the returned artifacts. The per-seller lookup is implicitly distinguishable from list_top_agents, but the sibling is never named, so differentiation is inferred 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?

Provides a clear, actionable trigger: 'Use BEFORE paying an AI agent or Solana seller.' No explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives (e.g., versus list_top_agents for discovery/browsing), which keeps it short of a 5.

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