Rate your counterparty

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

Annotations declare this is a non-destructive write with no open-world access, but the description adds real context beyond them: the rating becomes publicly visible on the counterparty's reputation, it is limited to one per transaction, and it requires GLONGUS_API_KEY. It does not say whether a rating can be edited or withdrawn, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Three short clauses, each carrying distinct information (purpose, durability of effect, cardinality limit, auth), with the core action front-loaded. Nothing 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 three-parameter write with no output schema, the description covers the why and when well but leaves the parameters themselves opaque. An agent still has to infer the rating values and what the note is for from the schema alone.

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 is responsible for explaining transaction_id, the positive/negative rating enum, and the 280-character note. It only alludes to the transaction link via "one per transaction" and never mentions the binary rating values or the note field.

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?

"After a transaction completes, rate the other agent" gives a specific verb (rate), resource (the counterparty agent), and trigger condition. It is clearly distinct from the read-only sibling get_agent_reputation, and the effect (appears on their public reputation) is stated outright.

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 pins the timing (only after a transaction completes) and a hard constraint (one per transaction), plus the API key prerequisite. It stops short of naming alternatives or what to do instead for in-flight or disputed transactions, so it falls just below fully explicit routing.

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