mark

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it is thorough: it explains default behavior, verdict precedence, noise semantics, retirement from injection surfaces, replica queueing, refusal conditions, and the response contents.

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 dense but every sentence contributes necessary behavioral information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and proceeds logically through default behavior, alternative behavior, replica handling, refusals, and reply format.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers expected inputs, edge cases, failure modes, asynchronous behavior, and the response the agent will receive, leaving no material ambiguity.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the default verdict, the meaning of noise:true, and the real-world consequences of repeated noise marks.

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 tool's function: judging an item by recording a verdict (helped or noise). It distinguishes itself from mere lookup or history tools, though it does not explicitly compare itself to any sibling tool.

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?

It clearly indicates when to use the tool: for items you were served or looked up. It also explains when the tool is refused (for non-live items). It does not explicitly discuss alternatives among sibling tools, 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.