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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses cost ('FREE'), the identity constraint (no self-rating), and the idempotency constraint (one rating per attestation). It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or what happens if the attestation is not yet complete, which are the remaining behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 tight paragraphs: the action and side effect lead, then the return contract, then the constraints. No filler sentences and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so enumerating rating_id, data_hash, and trust_score_updated is a bonus rather than a requirement, and the key constraints are covered. It could still say what error surfaces when the attestation isn't complete or when a duplicate rating is attempted.

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 100%, so all eight parameters — including the optional rater_mint_id disambiguation rule — are already documented in the schema. The description restates the 1–5 score range but adds no semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 — rate a completed unit of work (an attestation) 1–5 — plus the side effect of updating the rated actor's trust score. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like mint_attest (creates the attestation) or mint_trust_score (reads a score).

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?

Gives clear context for use (a completed unit of work existing as an attestation, referenced from mint_attest) and two hard preconditions: you can't rate yourself, and one rating per attestation per rater. It does not explicitly name alternative tools such as mint_trust_history or mint_trust_compare for read-only trust inspection, so routing guidance is implicit rather than spelled out.

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