marketplace_tool_reputation

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only (though 'Get' implies it), whether results are cached or live, or any potential side effects or authentication requirements. While listing the data components gives some transparency, it lacks critical behavioral context expected without annotations.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then efficiently lists the included data categories. There is no redundant information or filler, making it appropriately concise.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with one parameter and no output schema, and the description does list the key result components. However, it lacks context on how this tool relates to nearby marketplace tools, and with no output schema, the agent does not learn the response structure beyond the listed fields. This leaves moderate gaps, making the description minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 input schema already provides a 100% description of the only parameter (toolId: 'The tool ID to check'). The tool description adds no further meaning, such as the expected format of a tool ID or where to obtain it. With full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'complete trust and reputation information for a tool', enumerating the included data (ratings, uptime, verification status, earned badges). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like marketplace_get_tool or marketplace_tool_revenue, which focus on generic details or revenue respectively.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of related marketplace tools such as marketplace_get_tool, marketplace_tool_insights, or marketplace_reputation_leaderboard. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred use cases, leaving the agent without direction on alternative selection.

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