he_rate_home

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It indicates a mutation (rating) and emphasizes the need for user confirmation. However, it fails to clarify idempotency, error conditions, or whether the action replaces or creates a new rating. The description adds some value but lacks full transparency.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence stating the core purpose immediately followed by a critical instruction. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the action, rating dimensions, scale, and a safety instruction. It could mention the optional feedback parameter and the effect if already rated, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context by grouping rating parameters and associating them with an exchange, but it omits the optional 'feedback' parameter and does not provide significant new information beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 explicitly states the action 'Rate a home after an exchange' and specifies the rating dimensions (clean, expectation, communication) and scale (1-5). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which are primarily read operations or other mutations like favorites or archives.

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 provides a clear usage context: after an exchange. It includes an important instruction to ask user confirmation, guiding the agent on proper invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools for related tasks like reading ratings.

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