Rate a Zé order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds 'Does not charge' and reiterates the explicit_user_intent requirement, but doesn't clarify what destructive means here (e.g., whether an existing rating is overwritten or immutable). No annotation contradiction.

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 short and front-loaded, with each sentence carrying some information: the action, the explicit-intent requirement, and the no-charge guarantee. No filler sentences, though the opening pseudo-signature is slightly redundant with the title and uses mismatched parameter names.

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 mutating, destructive-flagged tool with no output schema and only 25% parameter coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits expected return behavior, error/failure cases, and prerequisites like whether the order must exist or be in a rateable state. It does clarify the no-charge and explicit-intent aspects, which are useful but insufficient.

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 only 25%, so the description needed to compensate, but it merely names 'orderNumber' and 'rating' without explaining their meaning, source, or constraints. The 'orderNumber' label conflicts with the schema's 'order_id', and response_format is unaddressed. It repeats explicit_user_intent but adds little semantic value.

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 and title clearly identify the action as rating an order, with a specific verb ('rate') and resource ('order'). It is distinct from sibling checkout/cart tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself. The pseudo-signature 'rateOrder(orderNumber, rating)' also introduces a parameter-name mismatch with schema's 'order_id'.

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 only guidance is 'Requires explicit_user_intent', a precondition rather than a routing rule. It does not state when rating is appropriate, when it is not, or which sibling tool would be an alternative. An agent must infer usage from the tool name.

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