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

Annotations already declare a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the call trigger — it doesn't say whether an existing rating is replaced, what happens with an unknown slug, or what the result looks like. With annotations present the bar is lower, so a 3 fits.

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, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the call constraint second.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is what happens on a duplicate or invalid slug, which the idempotentHint partially covers.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It restates the 1-5 range for stars (matching the schema bounds) and implies slug identifies an AGENTPARK game, but never says what a slug is or what format it takes. Partial compensation only.

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 (record) and resource (a 1-5 star rating for an AGENTPARK game), which is clearly distinct from siblings like play_game and show_arcade. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Only call when the user gives a rating' gives an explicit positive condition plus an exclusion, which is more than most definitions offer. No alternatives are named, but the trigger condition is unambiguous.

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