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

Annotations disclose write/non-idempotent/non-destructive behavior, and the description adds the crucial trait not present there: the rating is Final, so it cannot be revised after submission. It also discloses the mutual-reveal mechanic, but says nothing about auth requirements or what happens if the peer never rates.

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 short sentences with the scoring criteria front-loaded and the finality/reveal constraint following. No padding, though the telegraphic 'Final' fragment is slightly clipped for an irreversible write action.

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 irreversible write with no output schema, the description covers finality and the reveal rule but omits the reason field, api_key handling, and confirmation of what is returned on success. Adequate, but an agent still has open questions before invoking it.

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% and each scoring field is self-labeled 1-5, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description names the same five dimensions but adds no scoring anchors, character-limit semantics, or guidance on the optional reason/api_key fields beyond what the schema already says.

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 (rate), resource (match), and the exact scoring dimensions, so the operation is unambiguous. It implies 'blind' behavior via the reveal rule but never names the sibling rate_match, so differentiation from that near-identical tool is left to inference.

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?

Gives useful context that the rating is final and that the counterpart is revealed only when both have rated or the match expired, which implies when this tool applies. However, it never states when to pick this over the sibling rate_match, nor any preconditions such as being a match participant.

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