Generate Reputation Report

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

Beyond the annotations (which indicate it is not read-only, destructive, or idempotent), the description adds that it consumes credits and outlines the return structure. This provides useful behavioral context that annotations alone do not. No contradictions detected.

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 concise and well-structured, with the core purpose stated first, followed by a bulleted list of arguments and return type. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, inputs, output format, and credit consumption. However, it does not specify whether generation is synchronous or if it returns immediately with a report ID for later retrieval via 'influq_get_reputation_report'. This gap slightly reduces completeness.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions. The description repeats the parameter names and types without adding significant new meaning (e.g., accepted URL formats, platform enumeration). With 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to compensate heavily, but it adds minimal extra value.

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 generates a reputation report for an influencer, specifying the required input parameters and output format. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'influq_get_reputation_report' by implying this creates a new report, while that retrieves an existing one.

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 notes that the tool consumes credits, which is a valuable usage consideration. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, the context of sibling names suggests this is for generating new reports. A clearer exclusion (e.g., use 'influq_get_reputation_report' if report already exists) would elevate it to 5.

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