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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that a wallet token is required, that ratings are one-per-order, and the non-obvious consequence that CITIZEN and same-network ratings are saved but not counted. It does not state whether a rating can be changed or what a successful call returns, leaving a modest gap.

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 sentences with no filler; the actor, action, and eligibility gate come first, with the scoring caveat last. Every clause adds information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 mutating, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers eligibility, cardinality, and the reputational effect of the rating. Missing details are the response shape and whether ratings are reversible, but the essential call-time context 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% for three required parameters, so the description must compensate. It does assign meaning to each (token = wallet token, stars = 1 to 5, order = the settled order), but never clarifies the order's format (an ID?), the token's form, or whether stars accepts non-integers, so the compensation is partial.

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 settled order), the actor role (buyer), and the scale (1 to 5), which is enough to separate it from shop_orders or review_job_report. It stops short of naming a sibling tool explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated within the crowded shop_*/review_* family.

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 after the seller delivered on time and was paid; one rating per order" gives an explicit precondition and a uniqueness constraint, so an agent knows when calling is valid. It does not discuss what to do when the precondition fails or whether any alternative action exists, but the when-to-use condition is stated clearly.

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