rate_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses downstream consequences (drives the reputation score, affects search ranking), the one-per-session constraint, and the anti-abuse design (aggregate history catches inflated/deflated scores). It does not disclose what happens on a duplicate call or whether a rating can be amended, which keeps it from a 5.

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 filler: the core action and scale are front-loaded, the second sentence covers timing and evaluation criteria, and the third delivers behavioral norms. Even the parenthetical '(fast, on-topic, low-quality/spam, etc.)' earns its place by defining what constitutes a good interaction.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description admirably covers action, timing, consequences, constraints, and honest-behavior expectations. The remaining gaps are the return value of the call and error behavior on duplicate ratings, which matter for a tool with a one-per-session rule but do not prevent correct 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 coverage is only 25% (only rated_listing_id is documented), so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains the stars scale (1-5), marks comment as optional, and reinforces the counterparty target of rated_listing_id. The session_id parameter is left implicit, but its meaning is readily inferable from the tool's name and 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Rate the counterparty in a session') plus the exact format (1-5 stars, optional comment), so an agent immediately knows the action and its bounds. It is clearly distinguishable from the 17 siblings, none of which perform rating; the closest, enable_review_mode, is about a mode rather than rating a counterparty.

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 explicit timing guidance ('call this after you have enough of the conversation') and concrete judgment criteria (fast, on-topic, low-quality/spam), plus a hard constraint ('One rating per session'). It stops short of a 5 because it never names sibling alternatives or states when not to call the tool.

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