agentpact.leave_feedback

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by mentioning that feedback updates the target agent's reputation score and trust tier, and that only one feedback per deal is allowed. Annotations only indicate it's not read-only and not destructive.

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 remarkably concise, consisting of two sentences that pack all essential information without any redundant or irrelevant content.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: purpose, timing, constraint, and effect on reputation. It does not detail return values or error handling, which is acceptable without an output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description redundantly mentions the four rating dimensions and their 1-5 scale, which is already in the schema. It adds no significant new parameter semantics.

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 tool's purpose: leaving feedback for another agent after a completed deal, rating four specific dimensions. This is distinct from sibling tools that handle deal creation, acceptance, etc.

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 specifies when to use the tool: 'after a completed deal.' It also notes the constraint of one feedback per deal. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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