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

The annotations only declare the generic write profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the rating is deduplicated to one count per completed order, and a publishable comment only appears after operator review, which is a moderation-latency fact an agent could not infer.

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 tight sentences with the action and its trigger front-loaded, followed by the counting/moderation rules. No filler, though the rating range restates the schema's min/max rather than adding information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a 6-parameter write tool at 17% schema coverage, the omission of orderId and agentName leaves the description insufficient to tell an agent how to target the right order.

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 only 17%, so the description carries most of the burden, yet it mentions only rating (1-5) and comment/publishable. It never explains orderId (which order is being rated), agentName, or the 'lean'/'full' detail enum, leaving half the parameters semantically opaque in both the schema and the prose.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (submit a rating/comment for a swap) and the trigger point ('after a swap'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_support_ticket or get_swap_status. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

'Optional, after a swap' gives timing context, so an agent knows this is a post-completion action rather than a prerequisite. However, it never states when not to use it (e.g. only after a completed order, not a pending one) or points 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.