Rate Counterparty

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes further: the rating feeds the counterparty's Trust Score (up to 15 pts), is one-per-escrow-per-rater, and is permanent and public. Permanence and public visibility are consequential side effects an agent must know before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by impact, constraints and timing in short paragraphs. The closing call-to-action partly restates the timing already given, a minor redundancy, but the rationale it adds keeps it useful.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and 100% schema coverage handles parameters. The description covers timing, effect on trust score, permanence and frequency limits; only permission/auth prerequisites and whether the rating is revocable are left implicit.

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 every parameter including rating, escrow_id and rater_role is already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only adds the one-rating-per-escrow constraint, which is a modest addition over the schema's own note.

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?

States a specific verb (leave a rating), resource (peer rating for a counterparty), value range (1–5 stars) and trigger condition (after a completed escrow). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like evaluate_escrow_work or audit_task, which judge work rather than record a peer rating.

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?

Explicit timing is given: call after an escrow completes, whether it passed or failed, and the one-rating-per-escrow-per-rater rule bounds repeated use. No alternative sibling is named as a substitute, so it stops short of a 5.

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