rate_contact

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, destructive, idempotent write, and the description adds value beyond them: the mutation is scoped to contact ordering/listing, the return payload is spelled out (name, company, position, verdict, note) despite no output schema, and the ambiguity error is disclosed. Minor gap: it does not say whether 'clear' also discards an existing note, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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 verb and resource are front-loaded in the first clause and every sentence carries information (verdict meanings, trigger, scope, return, error). It is dense and parenthetical-heavy ('(a good person to ask for a referral: listed first wherever contacts are)'), which costs some readability but not correctness.

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 3-parameter tool with an enum and no output schema, the description covers trigger, effects, return shape, and the error case. The only real hole is what happens to an existing note when verdict is 'clear', which an agent could get wrong without a trial call.

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%, but the description still adds meaning: 'use' is explained as 'listed first wherever contacts are', 'clear' as returning to 'the usual order', and the note as 'shown with their name'. It also restates the who identifier and the name-disambiguation failure that the schema only hints at.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource pair ('Record what the person says about someone they know at a company') and then enumerates the three verdict values and their effects. No sibling tool deals with contact ranking, and the phrase 'it only changes how contacts are ordered and listed' pins down the scope of effect precisely.

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?

'Call it when the person tells you whom to ask or not to ask' is an explicit trigger, and the note that it 'only changes how contacts are ordered and listed' bounds what the tool should be used for. The error path ('Errors when no connection (or more than one) has that name: then use their profile link') gives a concrete fallback, though no explicit when-not-to-call case is stated.

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