rynmesh_credit_summary

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

The verb 'Return' suggests a read-only lookup and there is no indication of side effects. With no annotations, though, the description does not explain prerequisites, data freshness, or error behavior, so it only partially carries the transparency burden.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word conveys meaning. This is appropriately concise for a simple lookup tool.

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?

Although the tool is simple and the return values are named, the undefined 'category' parameter leaves the agent unable to confidently construct a correct call. No output schema or annotation compensates for that gap.

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% and the description must compensate, but it only hints at the peer/peer_id relationship through the word 'peer.' The 'category' parameter is entirely unexplained, including its optionality or allowed values.

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 states a specific action ('Return') and resource ('credit score and distribution weight for a Rynmesh peer'), so the basic purpose is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from rynmesh_credit_scoreboard or rynmesh_record_credit_event, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'For a Rynmesh peer' implies this is for per-peer credit lookups rather than global scoreboards. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use it, leaving the decision partly to inference.

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