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

The description discloses the non-obvious side effect that the rating is recorded and the worker's Bayesian aggregate is recomputed with explicit prior_mean=4.2 and prior_weight=10, and that worker_new_aggregate_rating is the new aggregate. This goes beyond the annotations, which only mark readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The 'once' constraint also reinforces the immutability/idempotency behavior.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the core action and constraints, the second explains the side effect and resulting aggregate field. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 simple three-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, the description covers the action, the one-time constraint, the scoring range, the required description, and the key side effect and new aggregate field. It does not enumerate full return values or error behavior, but the explicit worker_new_aggregate_rating line keeps it largely complete for selection and invocation.

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 the schema already documents all three required parameters and their constraints. The description's mention of an integer score from 1 to 5 and a written description only restates schema facts; it does not add new parameter-level meaning.

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 clearly states the verb-resource pair: 'Rate a completed task once' with an integer score from 1 to 5 and a written description. It also includes the distinctive worker Bayesian aggregate recomputation, which helps separate it from generic rating tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like submit_completion_review or submit_experience_feedback.

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?

It gives clear context: use this for a completed task, only once, with a numeric score and written description. It does not, however, state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so the when-not guidance is absent.

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