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

While annotations already include idempotentHint=true, the description adds meaningful context: the feedback is 'read by the human operator' and that 'calling again overwrites.' This enriches the behavioral model beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.

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 long, front-loads the purpose, and packs essential usage guidance (when to call, what to report, overwrite behavior) into a compact, readable format. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple feedback tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the trigger condition, the one-per-job constraint, overwrite behavior, and the human-reader context. This is fully sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 covers engine, rating, and message with descriptions (60% coverage), and the description reiterates rating and message limits. However, it does not clarify the 'job_token' or 'category' parameters, leaving those to the schema's empty descriptions. The description adds little beyond the schema for individual parameters.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Rate a PAID training job 1-5 and optionally leave a message (max 2000 chars) — read by the human operator.' This makes the tool's action and scope unmistakable and easily distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_training_job or get_training_job.

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 gives clear context for when to call: 'after a job completes and you have assessed the model.' It also provides explicit behavioral guidance ('report anything unexpected... or simply confirm it worked') and a constraint ('One feedback per job; calling again overwrites'). It does not name alternatives, but the sibling context makes those clear.

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