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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutation. The description adds context about the restricted eligibility and one-time nature, which is beyond annotations. It does not mention irreversibility or whether ratings can be updated, but the annotation already signals mutation.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core action and then packing eligibility constraints into the second. No wasted words.

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 mutation tool with destructiveHint and no output schema, the description covers when and by whom it can be used, which are the critical constraints. It could mention that the rating is final or that comment is optional, but the schema already covers comment's optionality, and the constraints are the main thing an agent needs.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for 'rated_user_id' by explaining the relationship (poster/bidder), which clarifies a parameter that could be ambiguous. It also reinforces the score range implicitly, though the schema already documents it.

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 clearly states the verb 'Rate' and the resource 'your counterparty on a finished job', and it distinguishes from siblings like complete_job and get_ratings. It specifies the exact condition (completed or cancelled job) and scope.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: on a completed or cancelled job, and it lists exclusions: only the poster and accepted bidder can rate each other, not third parties or self, and only once per job. This clearly differentiates from siblings like get_ratings (viewing ratings) and complete_job (marking job done).

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