erc8004_get_reputation_summary

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates safety. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation, only specifying the tool reads reputation data. No additional traits (e.g., performance, auth needs) are disclosed.

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, efficient sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 read-only tool with one parameter, the description sufficiently conveys the core function. It does not describe the return format or what the summary contains, but given no output schema, this is a minor gap. The tool remains fully usable.

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 100% coverage with a description for agentId. The tool description does not add meaning beyond restating that the agent is from ERC-8004, which is already clear from the context. 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 action ('Get'), the resource ('aggregated reputation summary'), and the scope ('for an ERC-8004 agent from the Reputation Registry'). It uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among siblings like erc8004_get_agent or erc8004_get_agent_feedback.

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 implies usage context (retrieving aggregated reputation) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., erc8004_get_agent_stats or erc8004_get_agent_metadata). No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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