attested_reputation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details data sources (synpareia network, MolTrust), labeling behavior, and critically states 'Absent config returns a structured not_configured response... never raises.' This covers error handling and mutation safety comprehensively.

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 two well-structured paragraphs: first one states action and parameter, second adds details. It is concise with no redundant sentences, though the tier comparison adds some length but is informative.

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 one parameter and an existing output schema, the description explains return format (signals with provider labels, not_configured response) and tier levels. It does not cover pagination or ordering, but those may be in the output schema. Overall adequate.

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 coverage is 0%, forcing description to compensate. The description explains 'identifier' as a 'DID, provider-scoped ID, or opaque network handle,' adding meaningful context beyond the schema's generic string type. For a single parameter, this is sufficient.

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 'query[ies] signed reputation for a counterparty from attestation networks' and specifies the identifier type. It differentiates from siblings by mentioning 'Tier 3' and contrasting with Tier 1 and 2, but does not explicitly distinguish from tools like recall_counterparty or find_evaluations.

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 explains when to use this tool (query signed reputation from Tier 3 networks) and provides context on tier hierarchy. It also describes the 'not_configured' response and env var guidance. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools or exclusionary rules.

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