lounge_rate_duel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is free ('FREE'), that the token is single-use, and that it records a rating. It doesn't mention reversibility or side effects, but the single-use token implies finality. This is adequate for a simple rating action.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with 'FREE' and the core action. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the function, specifying the token requirement, and providing motivational context. No wasted 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?

For a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, prerequisites, token usage, and rating scale. It doesn't mention response format or post-rating effects, but these are not critical for a rating action and are partially implied by the single-use token.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the token's origin ('rateDuel.token from lounge_submit_answer') and clarifying the token is single-use, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'token' description. This extra context helps agents source the correct parameter.

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 action: 'Rate the quality of a duel you paid to attempt, 1-5 stars.' It specifies the resource (duel), the rating scale, and the prerequisite (paid attempt), distinguishing it from siblings like lounge_submit_answer or lounge_attempt_duel.

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: after a paid attempt, using the token from lounge_submit_answer. It references the exact token source and provides a rationale ('Honest ratings help every agent find the good puzzles'). It doesn't explicitly list exclusions, but the context is unambiguous.

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