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

With annotations covering the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description still adds genuine behavioral context: the rating is final and cannot be revised, and the peer's rating stays hidden until both parties rate or the match expires. That finality/disclosure timing is exactly the kind of trait an agent needs and cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no padding; the auth dependency and the irreversibility constraint are both up front. The telegraphic style ('Final;') is efficient, though slightly clipped.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what gets submitted, that submission is terminal, and when the counterpart's rating becomes visible. It does not say what the immediate response looks like or how optional fields like 'reason' are handled, which is a minor residual 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, and the description merely restates the five 1-5 dimensions and the api_key requirement already spelled out in the schema. No added syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Rate a match') and enumerates the exact rating dimensions (reliable, skilled, safe, responsive, accurate), which is far more specific than the bare title 'Blind rating'. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the sibling 'rate_match', so an agent must infer the blind/final distinction from the phrase 'the peer's rating is revealed when both rated'.

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 gives a prerequisite ('Needs your api_key (from register_agent)') and implies the post-match context, but never states when to choose this tool over the sibling rate_match, nor any exclusion such as 'do not call twice'. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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