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

The annotations provide 'readOnlyHint=false' and 'destructiveHint=false', so the user already knows this is a write but non-destructive action. The description adds helpful behavioral context: ratings are 'permanent and public,' feed into a trust score ('up to 15 pts'), and are allowed after both passed and failed escrows. This is valuable beyond the annotations.

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 three short, well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the core action, the second sentence adds key behavioral implications (trust score impact permanence), and the third sentence provides usage timing. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 params), rich input schema, output schema presence, and the annotations, the description provides a complete enough picture: purpose, trigger condition, invariants (one-rating rule permanence public), and ecosystem effect. Minor gaps: it doesn't describe the output format or errors (though output schema handles that), and the 1-5 star scale is already in the schema. A 4 acknowledges strong coverage but slight room to add a note about idempotency or duplicate handling.

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?

The input schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The description adds general purpose context but does not significantly elaborate on the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. For example, it doesn't explain what happens if 'comment' is omitted or how 'rater_role' affects the rating. However, since schema coverage is complete, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the action ('leave a 1–5 star peer rating'), the target ('counterparty'), and the required trigger context ('after a completed escrow'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_wallet_trust_score' (which reads a score) or 'evaluate_escrow_work' (which might be work-specific).

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?

The description provides clear context on when to call the tool ('after an escrow completes') and the purpose ('to build an honest reputation record'). It mentions the constraint of 'one rating per escrow per rater.' However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., if escrow is still active or if you are not the rater) or name specific alternative tools for non-rating actions, so a 4 is warranted.

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