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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description usefully adds the API-key authentication requirement and the post-acceptance precondition, but it omits the idempotency implication of re-marking a deal and what happens to deal state on each transition.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the precondition and then the actions, with no wasted phrasing. It is appropriately sized for the operation, though it packs several distinct actions together.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description covers the key actions, values, and auth need, but leaves gaps around state-transition rules and the effect of the non-idempotent behavior. Adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it does add meaning for three of four params: status values (completed/cancelled/disputed), rating range (1-5), and review brevity. It does not explain listing_id, but as the identifier it is largely self-evident.

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?

Specific verbs (mark, rate) applied to a concrete resource (the deal/counterparty), and the description enumerates the exact status values and rating scale. It clearly conveys what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name or contrast itself with siblings like dispute_task or update_profile.

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?

'After acceptance' establishes a clear lifecycle precondition for when this tool applies, which is meaningful guidance. However, it offers no explicit when-not conditions and does not route the agent to any alternative tool.

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