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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses one-vote-per-endpoint behavior, that re-voting replaces the previous vote, that `report` is optional and does not change the rating, and that the vote and report must agree. It also sets expectations around what should not be down-voted.

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 fairly long, but nearly every sentence contributes a needed rule or example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then covers exclusions, report semantics, replacement behavior, and alternatives. It could be slightly better structured with separators, but the length is justified given the nuanced behavior.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers the required inputs, how to obtain them, what counts as up/down, exclusions, report semantics, vote replacement, and alternative routing to `feedback`. An agent has enough context to invoke this tool correctly in most situations.

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?

Although the schema already covers all parameters, the description adds important semantics beyond the schema: `method` and `url` must match exactly what `discover` returned, `vote` meanings are reinforced, and `report` should describe concrete disruptions like unexpected response codes or ignored arguments. It also adds a constraint not in the schema: do not include secrets or response data in `report`.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Rate a documented endpoint you called.' It clearly defines the up/down vote semantics and scope, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly routing non-endpoint issues to `feedback`. An agent can tell exactly what this tool is for.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: rate only endpoints you actually called, using method/url as returned by `discover`, and judge against the endpoint's own docs. It also lists specific non-down-vote cases and names `feedback` as the alternative for taskfuel-level problems, leaving little room for misuse.

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