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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral constraint ('No case details'), but says nothing about needing a match/referral identifier or status token to associate the feedback, and nothing about resubmission/idempotency semantics.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the rating scope is front-loaded. The brevity is efficient, though it comes at the cost of the missing semantic detail noted above.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and near-zero schema coverage, the description is too thin: it omits the identifiers/token required to target the submission, does not disambiguate the three satisfaction dimensions, and does not indicate what happens on submission or whether ratings can be revised later.

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?

With 8% schema description coverage, the description must carry the burden, and it only partially does: it maps to relevance, responsiveness, pricing_accuracy, availability_accuracy, the satisfaction fields, and retained. It leaves comment, match_id, referral_id, and status_token completely undocumented in both schema and description, and it collapses the three distinct satisfaction_* parameters into one ambiguous 'satisfaction'.

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 states the resource clearly: it collects 1-5 ratings on match relevance, responsiveness, pricing/availability accuracy, satisfaction, and hiring outcome. An agent immediately understands this is a post-match rating submission. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling tools like update_matching_preferences or get_referral_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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 word 'Optional' signals that individual ratings are not mandatory, which is mild guidance, but there is no statement of when this tool should be called (e.g., after a referral/introduction completes) or which sibling to use instead. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives named.

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