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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds useful behavioral context: feedback feeds SeaWeb's ranking and affects future searches. It doesn't contradict annotations, though it could mention whether votes are updatable or permanent.

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 sentences with no fluff: the core action is front-loaded, followed by vote semantics and the consequence. Each sentence contributes essential guidance.

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?

The description covers when to call, how to vote, why it matters, and what reason to provide. For a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, it is nearly complete; the only minor gap is explicitly defining entity_id.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the vote values ('up'/'down'), their meaning, and the reason field with an example. It implies entity_id is the search result being rated, though it doesn't explicitly spell out the identifier source.

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 identifies the action: rate a search result with an up/down vote. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by framing the tool as feedback for SeaWeb's ranking, which separates it from log_outcome and vote_comparison.

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 explicit timing guidance: 'Call at the end of a task for the result(s) that mattered.' It also defines when to vote up vs down. It does not mention when not to call or explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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