erc8004_get_feedback_details

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates the tool is read-only, so the description's claim of 'Get' is consistent. The description adds that the tool includes signed values and revocation status, but other behavioral aspects like pagination limits or error handling are not disclosed. Since annotations carry the main burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no extraneous information. Every word adds value.

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 description gives a hint about return content (signed values, revocation status) but does not specify the structure or all fields. With no output schema, the description should be more complete to set expectations. It is adequate but not thorough.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond stating the return includes signed values and revocation status, which applies to the result, not parameter choices. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('detailed individual feedback records'), and additional details ('signed values and revocation status'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like erc8004_get_agent_feedback, which likely returns aggregated or different feedback data.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like erc8004_get_agent_feedback or erc8004_get_reputation_summary. Without explicit differentiation, an agent may choose the wrong tool.

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