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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that ratings are permanent ('Once per bid') and have public visibility ('Ratings appear on their public profile'). It could add more about auth requirements or whether ratings can be edited, but it covers the most important behavioral traits.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core action and scale, then adds the timing constraint, uniqueness, and privacy implication. Every clause earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description explains the key prerequisites: a deal must be agreed, only certain statuses qualify, it can be done only once, and the result is public. It does not describe the response or error cases, but the essential calling context is well covered.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: it references the 1–5 scale and optional comment, both already described in the schema. bid_id still lacks meaning beyond 'bid', though the description's 'other party of a bid' gives some indirect context.

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, 'Rate the other party of a bid 1–5', with an optional comment, the timing ('once a deal was agreed on it — fulfilled, released or lapsed'), and the permanence constraint 'Once per bid'. This clearly distinguishes it from feedback- or flag-related siblings by focusing on post-deal counterparty ratings.

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 gives concrete usage timing: rating only applies after a deal is agreed and only for fulfilled, released, or lapsed deals, and only once per bid. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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