Get Reputation Receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. Description adds 'Idempotent read with no side effects; returns null when no receipt exists', which enriches beyond annotations by specifying return behavior for missing data and confirming no side effects. No contradiction.

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?

Description is three sentences: purpose, exclusions, and behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary action, then provides clear 'do not use' guidance, and concludes with side-effect and return info. No fluff, though the second sentence could be slightly tighter without losing clarity.

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 tool has only 2 parameters (both well-documented in schema), an output schema exists (not shown but inferred), and no complex nested objects, the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, usage restrictions, prerequisites, and behavioral notes. It fully equips an AI agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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?

Input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions and examples for both parameters. The description mentions 'one known tenant-scoped operator DID' but does not add new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema already provides rich detail.

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?

Description starts with 'Use this when you need the signed Signal reputation receipt for one known tenant-scoped operator DID', clearly stating verb (get), resource (signed receipt), and scope (single operator). It further lists contained elements (score, metrics, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools, making purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (need signed receipt for one operator) and gives three explicit alternatives with tool names for different use cases: tenant-wide aggregates, portable signed operator list, fraud review posture. Also notes prerequisite API key and read access requirement, providing complete guidance on usage context.

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