Rate Counterparty

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: ratings are permanent and public, one rating per escrow per rater, and ratings directly affect a trust score (up to 15 pts). This is exactly the kind of consequence disclosure an agent needs before invoking a state-changing tool.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, the second explains consequences and constraints, and the third gives explicit usage timing. No sentence is wasted or redundant.

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 6-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the essential context: when to call it, what happens on the counterparty's trust score, the one-per-escrow constraint, and the permanence/public nature. Since an output schema exists, not detailing return values is acceptable.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameter descriptions, including rating bounds, roles, and wallet address formats. The description reinforces the domain context (e.g., 'counterparty', 'rater', 'per escrow') but does not add significant new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('leave... rating'), a specific resource ('counterparty after a completed escrow'), and a clear purpose. It also names the downstream effect (AgentTrust Wallet Trust Score), which makes the tool's unique function immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_wallet_trust_score or evaluate_escrow_work.

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 explicitly says 'Call this after an escrow completes — whether it passed or failed — to build an honest reputation record.' This gives a clear temporal trigger and intent. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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