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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the Builder key requirement, notes the call is free, and adds a crucial semantic warning that call success does not imply operator confirmation. It does not address reversibility or return behavior, but the explicit warning is valuable.

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 compact and front-loaded, placing the core purpose first and key constraints immediately after. The only notable redundancy is the duplicate 'free' mention in 'Free;' and '[free]', which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, authentication, and the key anti-inference rule, while the schema documents several parameters. Missing guidance on the action enum and return behavior is a minor gap because the enum values are largely self-explanatory.

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 50%, and the description adds some meaning by tying 'operator-confirmed usefulness' to the usefulness and operatorConfirmed fields, and 'household delivery status' to deliveredToHousehold. However, it does not explain the action enum or add detail beyond the schema's own descriptions for findingId and reviewToolCallId, so compensation is partial.

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 names a specific action — 'Record actual operator-confirmed usefulness and household delivery status' — and targets a defined resource, 'your completed quote review.' It clearly conveys the tool's data-capture purpose, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like review_installer_quote.

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 sets clear usage context: use it for a completed quote review, only after an operator actually confirmed the result, and 'never infer feedback from a successful tool call.' It provides a strong contextual signal but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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