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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by enumerating what comes back: the rating polarity, its reason, note, rater identity, and timestamp. It omits volume, ordering, and pagination behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

One dense sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and the return fields listed in a trailing clause. Nothing is redundant and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully covers the returned record's fields, which is the main thing an agent needs before calling. The remaining gap is the undefined cardId and the absence of any note on result size or ordering for a potentially long list across a company's contacts.

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 0% for the single nested cardId parameter, so the schema provides no meaning. The description partially compensates by implying the id refers to a company card whose contacts are also included, but it does not state that cardId must be a company card id versus a contact id, nor the uuid format expectation.

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 ("Lists") and a specific resource ("like and dislike ratings") and scopes it to a company plus its contacts. It is clearly distinct from the sibling write tool rateCompanyFit, but it never names that sibling or getIcpFitInsights, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 is a pure purpose statement with no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as rateCompanyFit (to add a rating) or getIcpFitInsights (to view fit analysis). An agent must infer from the tool name alone when to reach for this.

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