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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: ratings feed a network-wide verifier ranking, and only one rating per task is permitted. It stops short of describing failure behavior when a duplicate rating is attempted or what the call returns.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: what it does, what the rating affects, and the uniqueness constraint. The core action is front-loaded.

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 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effect, and a uniqueness rule, which is a reasonable amount. It still leaves the identity parameters (id, token) and error/duplicate-rating behavior unexplained, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 50%, and the description covers exactly the two undocumented-but-meaningful fields: estrellas as a 1-5 star value and comentario as optional. The remaining parameters (id as 'Request id', token as 'token_consulta') are left unexplained in both schema and description, so the description does not fully close the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb (rates) and resource (the verifier who completed a task), plus the input shape (1-5 stars, optional comment). No sibling tool (consultar_estado, cotizar, pagar_solicitud, solicitar_verificacion) overlaps with rating, so it is distinguishable in practice, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

"One rating per task" is a usable constraint that implies the operation is terminal and not repeatable, and the title scopes it to a 'completed task'. However, there is no explicit statement of preconditions (task must be finished, rater must be the requester) or of what to do if a rating already exists.

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