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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does state two important consequences: the review is permanent and it feeds reputation. It does not mention participant eligibility, one-review-per-job limits, or whether a review can be modified, but the key irreversible side effect is disclosed.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. Every word adds value: the action, the target, the timing, and the critical permanent reputation side effect.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core context: what to do, when to do it, and what the lasting consequence is. It could add eligibility or duplicate-review constraints, but the essential information for a correct call is present.

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 must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter explanations. It clarifies that 'rating' is a 1-5 rating of the other party, but it does not explicitly explain 'job_id' or the optional 'comment', leaving partial coverage of the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Rate') and resource ('the other party') tied to a job after completion, which clearly distinguishes it from read-only reputation tools and generic job actions. 'Permanent; feeds reputation' adds a unique, non-obvious purpose that separates it further from sibling tools.

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?

'After completion' provides clear timing context for when to use the tool. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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