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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the voting limit, update semantics, anti-abuse property ('无法刷分'), effect on ranking, and authentication requirement. It does not cover error cases or visibility of ratings, but for a rating mutation tool it delivers substantial transparency beyond the schema.

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 short, information-dense sentences. The core action and scale are front-loaded, followed by voting rules and purpose. Every sentence contributes, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 3-pareter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, scale, update behavior, one-vote limit, purpose, and auth need. Minor gaps exist (e.g., what happens if novel_id is invalid, or if a user attempts to rate their own novel), but these are edge cases an agent can infer or handle from the schema and error responses.

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 schema describes value and api_key, leaving novel_id undocumented. The description compensates by explaining the rating scale and decimal precision, and by linking the action to a specific work, clarifying novel_id's role. It also adds identity-based voting semantics not present in the schema. The 67% schema coverage means the description makes a meaningful contribution.

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 opens with the specific verb-resource pair '给一部作品打 1–5 分', making the tool's action unmistakable: assigning a rating to a novel. The one-decimal format and ranking purpose further clarify intent, and the tool is clearly distinguished from siblings like list_ratings, which only reads ratings.

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 gives clear context on when repeated calls are meaningful ('重复调用会更新你自己的分数') and states the one-vote-per-identity constraint. It also signals the authentication prerequisite ('需要 api_key'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the domain is simple enough that the intended usage is sufficiently clear.

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