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

Annotations declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent and destructive, and the description supplies the human-readable reason: the one-shot, mutual-only constraint that makes a repeat call invalid. It does not say what the destructive hint actually affects (whether a rating can be edited or withdrawn, or what happens on a second attempt), so it adds context but leaves the consequence of the write unspecified.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the action and the job-state precondition front-loaded before the eligibility clauses. Every clause carries a distinct constraint.

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 four-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers who, when and how often. It omits failure behavior (what the caller sees if they are ineligible or already rated) and whether the rated party is notified, which are the only meaningful remaining gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so score, job_id, comment and rated_user_id are already documented in the schema itself. The description reinforces the rated_user_id constraint (counterparty, not a third party or yourself), which is useful but largely duplicative. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (rate) plus the resource (your counterparty) and the precondition (a job that is completed or cancelled). It is immediately distinguishable from the read-side sibling get_ratings, which only returns existing ratings.

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?

Explicit eligibility and timing rules: only completed/cancelled jobs, only the buyer and the accepted bidder, only each other, only once per job. An agent can decide whether a call is legal without consulting any other source. No alternative tool exists for this action, so the absence of an alternative reference is not a gap.

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