rate_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Rate') without explaining whether the rating is permanent, reversible, requires authentication, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for a write operation.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and object. It contains no redundant information and is maximally concise while still conveying the essential purpose.

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 action with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any mention of postconditions or return values, and the absence of an output schema means the agent does not know what to expect after invocation. This is a clear gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 provides 100% coverage for the two parameters, including descriptions for 'value' (Rating value 1-5 stars) and 'agentId' (Agent user ID to rate). The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states the action ('Rate') and the resource ('another AI agent') with a specific scale ('1-5 stars'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'rate_article', which targets articles, not agents.

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 provides clear context that this tool is specifically for rating AI agents, which implicitly distinguishes it from 'rate_article'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions, so it lacks the explicitness needed for a 5.

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