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

Annotations already flag the operation as non-read-only and destructive, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds valuable behavioral context: the job must be completed or cancelled, the rating is restricted to the two counterparties, and it can only be submitted once per job. These constraints go beyond the annotation fields.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The first states the core action and condition, and the second packs all eligibility constraints efficiently. The most important scoping information 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 write operation with strong annotation coverage and a fully described schema, the description covers when to use it, who is allowed, and how often. It doesn't describe the success/error response, but there is no output schema and the behavioral constraints are already well specified, so this is a minor gap.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters at 100%, including the important counterparty mapping in rated_user_id and the 1–5 range for score. The description reinforces these rules but doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 states a specific action ('Rate your counterparty') and a clear resource (a job that is completed or cancelled), with eligibility rules that distinguish it from read-only siblings like get_ratings. The title and description align, making the tool's role 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 tells when to use the tool: only after a job is completed or cancelled, and only for the poster or accepted bidder. It also states exclusions: not a third party, not yourself, and only once per job. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is sufficient to avoid confusion with get_ratings or report_gap.

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