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

Annotations declare a non-idempotent, non-destructive write, but the description adds nothing about what that means in practice: whether re-rating overwrites a prior vote or stacks a new one, whether it requires prior usage, or what is returned. 'Playbooks that keep working rank higher' is motivation, not behavior.

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, front-loaded with the action, with no filler or repetition. The second sentence is rationale rather than instruction, but it is brief enough not to dilute the core statement.

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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and two of three parameters undocumented, the description leaves key questions open: how duplicate ratings behave, whether the playbook must have been used, and whether the caller gets confirmation or an updated aggregate. Not enough to call it safely.

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 only 33% — only `note` is documented. The description implicitly maps to `worked` ('whether a playbook worked'), but `id` is never identified as a playbook identifier and there is no guidance on what `note` should contain beyond the terse schema line.

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: 'Report whether a playbook worked for you.' The 'playbook' resource plus rating action makes it distinguishable from siblings like search_playbooks or review_broadcast, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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: you rate a playbook after it has (or hasn't) worked for you. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (must you have run the playbook first?), and no mention of alternatives such as search_playbooks for finding a playbook to rate.

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