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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing but never states that, and says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, default result count, or any auth/rate-limit constraints.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource front-loaded and the three filter dimensions enumerated in order. The nested parentheticals are packed but each earns its place; nothing is padded.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only the filter dimensions. It omits any indication of what a result contains (the 'rating' implied by 'rated' is never described) and does not mention pagination, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

At 67% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description does add real meaning by explaining the price-honesty concept ('does the price agents read match what people see') behind the prices enum. However it says nothing about limit, cursor, or detail, which the schema documents only thinly ('default 40').

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?

The description names the resource (rated websites) and enumerates the three filters that scope it, so an agent can tell it is a filtered listing tool rather than a lookup tool. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings such as check_website or sellers_on_domain, which would be needed for 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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of market/plain-agent/price filters suggests when to reach for it, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus check_website or search_sellers, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The routing hint ('check_website has the tables') lives in the schema, not the description.

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