mint_rate

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

With no annotations, the description discloses free usage, the returned fields, and key constraints (self-rating prohibition, single rating per attestation). This provides good transparency, though side effects beyond trust score update are not detailed.

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 two sentences with essential information front-loaded. Every sentence adds value and no unnecessary words.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values, but it still mentions them. It covers purpose, constraints, and usage, making it complete for an 8-parameter tool.

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 100%, so the schema already describes parameters. The description adds minimal extra context (e.g., linking attestation_id to mint_attest). This meets the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 verb 'rate' and resource 'attestation', and specifies the effect of updating trust scores. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mint_attest and mint_verify, which handle creation and verification.

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 implies usage after work completion and includes constraints (cannot rate self, once per rater). However, it does not explicitly compare with siblings or state when not to use.

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