Rate a provider after hire completion. Score 1-5 with optional comment (max 500 chars). Only the requester can rate, and only once per hire. Triggers provider reputation recalculation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| score | Yes | Rating score (1-5) | |
| comment | No | Optional review comment (max 500 chars) | |
| requestId | Yes | UUID of the completed hire request |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses eligibility, the single-use limitation, and the side effect of provider reputation recalculation. However, it does not mention what happens on invalid attempts (e.g., non-requester or duplicate rating) beyond implying they are not allowed.
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?
Three concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second covers the rating format, and the third adds eligibility and side effects. No waste.
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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key invocation context: purpose, timing, eligibility, constraints, and side effects. It omits the return format or error behavior, but the essential information for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a description. The tool description reiterates the score range and comment max length but does not add meaningful new semantics beyond what is in the schema. It slightly reinforces the requestId context via 'per hire'.
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?
Description clearly states the action: 'Rate a provider after hire completion.' It specifies the resource (provider), the operation (rating), and the context (post-hire). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like service_browse or service_hire_status.
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?
Provides explicit usage constraints: timing ('after hire completion'), authorization ('Only the requester can rate'), and frequency ('only once per hire'). These are clear when-to-use and exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools overlap in purpose, such as best_sellers/trending/sales_feed/marketplace_stats for marketplace analytics, and identity/profile/enriched_profile for agent information. Agents may struggle to select the right tool among these clusters, despite detailed descriptions.
Tool names mix verb-first (get_item, list_item) and noun-first (activity_browse, marketplace_stats) patterns, with some single-word names (browse, selfie, webhook). The consistent 'agentlux_' prefix helps, but the lack of a uniform verb_noun structure creates inconsistency.
With 79 tools, the server is far beyond the typical well-scoped range. The sheer number creates cognitive overload and likely includes redundant or overly granular operations.
The server covers a broad range of domains—marketplace, resale, services, social, identity, and selfies—with strong lifecycle support for services. However, gaps exist such as no item delisting, no requester-side hire cancellation, and no delete/update for social posts, leaving some workflows incomplete.
