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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent write. The description goes further, disclosing the actual effect ("tunes which posts the matcher picks for this scout"), cost ("Free"), and the user-interaction requirement, which are not covered by structured fields.

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 sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Slightly clipped but every sentence supplies a distinct fact (action/values, cost, effect, timing).

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?

There is no output schema, but the description covers the effect of calling it, the cost, and when to trigger it, which is sufficient for a simple two-parameter rating write. Return behavior is not described, a minor 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 coverage is 50%: dealId is documented in the schema, and rating carries an enum. The description restates the enum values ("would_send" or "would_not"), which is redundant with the schema, and adds nothing about dealId or the rating's downstream effect beyond what is already structured.

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: telling ProductClank whether a scout deal was a good pick, with the two allowed values spelled out. An agent can distinguish it from sibling get_scout_deals or claim_deal, but the description doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings.

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?

"Ask the user when they skip or finish a deal" gives a concrete trigger condition for invoking the tool. It also labels the call as "Free," but offers no explicit alternatives among the sibling tools for adjacent actions like report_deal_progress.

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