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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: re-rating overwrites the earlier rating, and the response branches — a public review link for high ratings, a pointer to report_issue for low ones. Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description corroborates rather than contradicts them; no failure/validation behavior is described.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scale, then auth, then response behavior. Slightly dense in the final sentence but every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, auth, and the salient conditional response content. Missing only error/validation behavior (e.g., what happens for a non-delivered or unknown order).

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?

With only 50% schema coverage (orderCode and stars are undescribed), the description compensates by tying orderCode to 'the email used when scheduling' and stating the 1–5 star scale. It doesn't clarify why email is optional in the connected-account case beyond the schema's own note.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (records a 1–5 star rating plus optional comment) and scopes it precisely to a 'delivered Fold order'. It also implicitly separates itself from report_issue by casting that sibling as the path for service problems rather than feedback.

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?

Gives clear preconditions (order must be delivered) and two authentication paths — connected account, or orderCode + the email used at scheduling. It also routes low-rating cases toward report_issue, though it does not explicitly state when to prefer report_issue over rating (e.g., rating is still recorded alongside a complaint).

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