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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds little beyond restating the core action. It does not mention side effects, whether it creates a new review, or what happens if a review already exists, which would be useful context beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise, uses two short sentences, and leads with the primary purpose before listing requirements. Every sentence carries useful information for selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

The tool is simple, has a fully described schema, and the description covers the required inputs. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not clarify what is returned or how this operation relates to updating an existing review, leaving minor gaps for an agent.

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 all three parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the rating range and minimum content length but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline expectation.

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 identifies the action ('Write') and the specific resource ('a review for a lounge'), which is distinct from update_review or delete_review. However, it does not explicitly call out sibling tools or differentiate itself from them, 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?

The description lists required inputs but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_review. There is no mention of the conditions for creating a new review or any exclusions, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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