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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: re-rating updates the existing rating, the rating is anonymous, it includes a platform-signed attestation that is not a quality guarantee, and it affects the listing's public quality score and seller reputation. This is exemplary transparency for a mutation tool.

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?

Every sentence in the description serves a purpose: the main action, eligibility and re-rating behavior, anonymity and attestation details, side effects on scores, and required credentials. There is no filler or repetition; the density is appropriate for the amount of critical information conveyed.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, prerequisites, behavioral nuances, and even mentions the attestation in the response. It does not fully specify the response format, but the most important output elements are described, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 100%, with descriptions for each parameter already explaining constraints (e.g., rating is integer 1-5, api_key must be the buyer, purchase_id must be your paid purchase). The description reinforces these requirements but does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Rate a listing you have purchased (1-5 stars, optional comment).' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like buy_data or browse_marketplace, and adds behavior such as re-rating updating existing rating, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: only a verified buyer can rate, and it requires the buyer's api_key and purchase_id. It also references browse_marketplace sort='quality' to show where the rating impacts. It does not name alternatives, but the prerequisites and context are clear enough to guide correct usage.

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