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

Annotations already disclose the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so safety is covered structurally. The description adds the deprecation cue ('Legacy', prefer the newer tool), which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about whether a repeat rating overwrites a prior one or how ratings are surfaced — the sort of detail that matters most for a non-idempotent write.

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 sentence, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact — this is the legacy path and the blind variant is preferred — is present up front. Nothing to trim.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and tool choice but is silent on the lifecycle questions an agent needs: whether re-rating an existing match replaces the previous score (relevant given idempotentHint=false), whether feedback is public to the target, and what the call returns. Adequate, but not complete.

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%, with score ('1-5'), target ('Agent id'), api_key, and feedback all documented inline. The description's '1-5 rating' merely restates the schema's score description, adding no syntax, constraint, or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 (rating), the resource (an agent you matched with), the scale (1-5), and frames itself as the legacy variant while naming the preferred sibling rate_match_blind. An agent can distinguish it from rate_match_blind and report_agent without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the alternative: '(prefer rate_match_blind)'. What it does not say is when this legacy path is actually required (e.g., only for older matches created via swipe), so the exclusion is directional but incomplete.

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