rate_walker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by specifying authentication requirements ('Requires WAG_EMAIL and WAG_PASSWORD') and the optional tip feature, but does not cover other important traits like rate limits, error handling, or what happens to existing reviews. It adequately describes the core mutation behavior without contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential context (optional tip, authentication) in the second. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with authentication needs), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, prerequisites, and key parameters but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format, error cases, or side effects, leaving some gaps for the agent to infer.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the tip is optional and in dollars, but does not provide additional context like format examples for 'booking_id' or review length guidelines. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Rate and review'), the target resource ('a walker'), and the context ('after a completed walk on wagwalking.com'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_walkers' or 'view_walker_profile' by focusing on post-walk evaluation rather than discovery or viewing.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('after a completed walk'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies prerequisites (completed walk, booking ID) but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_walk_status' for checking walk completion.

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