arp_rate

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait: ratings are stored with the rater's identity hashed (SHA-256), making them blind. It also explains the return value (JSON confirmation with timestamp and rater hash). No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so effectively.

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 concise and well-structured, with an overview followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative and earns its place.

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?

The description is complete for a simple rating submission tool. It covers the purpose, input parameters, behavioral trait (blinding), and return value. The output schema is mentioned as returning JSON confirmation. No gaps remain.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains each parameter: rater (hashed before storage), ratee, score (range -1.0 to 1.0), context (max 500 chars). This significantly adds value beyond the minimal schema titles.

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 submits a bilateral blind rating for another agent. The verb 'submit' and specific resource 'rating' make the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like arp_check or get_trust_evidence, which serve different functions.

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 explains when to use the tool (submitting a blind rating) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context of sibling tools provides some implicit differentiation, but explicit guidance is lacking.

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