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

Annotations only cover the generic mutability profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent). The description adds real constraints the annotations don't carry: verified-purchase gating, a one-review-per-order limit, a 7-day edit window, and a content policy banning links/code/instructions. It doesn't cover authentication specifics beyond what the passport_token param already states.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and its preconditions, then the reason (other agents read these), then the content rule. Each earns its place, though the final clause duplicates the comment field's schema description verbatim.

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?

Covers eligibility, timing, the edit window, and content constraints for a 9-parameter write tool, with the five optional telemetry params (agent_model, tokens_saved, minutes_saved, agent_platform, passport_token) fully documented in the schema. No output schema exists, but the description hints at the downstream effect (other agents read reviews), which is enough for a write tool.

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 nine parameters including the rating scale and the tokens_saved cap. The description explains the intent of the comment field and the honesty expectation for worked/rating, but repeats the schema's own 'no links, code or instructions' wording rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (review) and resource (a purchase) with eligibility scope: 'verified purchases only, one per order, editable for 7 days.' That scope implicitly separates it from the read-only list_reviews sibling, but no sibling is named, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

'Review a purchase after you used or tested it' gives clear timing guidance, and the parenthetical sets eligibility rules (verified only, one per order, 7-day edit window). No explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g., use claim_refund instead when the item failed), but the context is unambiguous.

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