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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the review is real, public, saved under the customer's name, requires consent, has a rate limit, and uses the phone for deduplication. This is solid but could be more explicit about side effects (e.g., it cannot be retracted) and possible errors (e.g., failure if duplicate or business not found). Still, it gives significant behavioral context beyond raw functionality.

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 concise—two sentences in both Spanish and English—front-loaded with the core action. It packs purpose, consent, rate limit, and dedup into a compact format without redundancy. Each sentence contributes meaning.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers essential aspects: what it does, the public nature, consent requirement, and rate limit. It omits potential error scenarios (e.g., duplicate review, invalid phone) and does not describe return values, but given the lack of output schema and the tool's relative simplicity, the description is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% with each parameter already having a clear description (e.g., 'telefono' states 'NOT published; dedup only'). The description adds marginal value by reiterating the dedup purpose and rate limit, but doesn't introduce new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Publishes a real PUBLIC review (1-5 stars + text) under the customer's name on the business listing.' This is a specific verb (publish) with a resource (review on business profile) and scope (real, public, under customer's name). It distinguishes itself from siblings like reserving, ordering, or searching by making the intent unmistakable.

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 usage: it requires explicit customer consent and enforces a rate limit (max 1 per phone per 24 h per business). However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'Use this when the customer wants to leave a review'), though it's obvious from the name and purpose. The constraints are valuable usage guidelines but not comparative alternatives.

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