Evident Reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuinely useful context not in the annotations — that only merchants with published feedback are returned and that an empty result set does not imply poor quality — but it says nothing about result format, matching behavior, or limits.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The caveat sentence is brief and earns its place by warning about result interpretation, though it is terse enough to feel slightly cryptic.

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 search tool with one undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description should at least explain what 'q' searches and what a result contains. It leaves both open, and the empty-results caveat only partially compensates for the missing parameter semantics.

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?

The single parameter 'q' has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, so an agent gets no information on what 'q' matches (merchant name, location, category?) or whether it is a free-text query. This is a clear gap for the only parameter.

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 states a verb and resource ('Find merchants') but the qualifier 'with published feedback' is ambiguous — it is unclear whether this is a hard filter (only merchants that have feedback) or merely a scope note. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like find_offerings or get_reputation, which an agent would need to disambiguate the resource being searched.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus find_offerings, get_reputation, or the other siblings. The second sentence ('Empty results are not evidence of quality') is a caution about interpreting output, not usage guidance, and no prerequisites or alternatives are named.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context — that identities are consumer-supplied and scoped to a merchant — plus pagination behavior, but says nothing about result size, rate limits, or what an 'experience' actually is.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and with zero filler. The pagination note is placed last where it belongs, though the middle sentence about identities is dense and unexplained.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations on returns, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain the return shape, what counts as a 'published experience', and how q filters. It does none of these, leaving an agent able to paginate but not to predict or constrain results.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies `after` (pass the returned next_cursor) and gestures at merchant_id via 'scoped to a merchant', but the `q` search parameter is never explained, leaving a third of the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 verb 'Find' and resource 'products or services' give a workable purpose, but the qualifier 'with published experiences' is opaque domain jargon that the agent cannot decode from this description. It does not explicitly contrast itself with find_merchants or get_offering, so the boundary between the lookup siblings is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether this is the entry point before get_offering, or how it relates to find_merchants. The only instruction is a pagination mechanics note ('Use next_cursor as after'), which is parameter usage rather than selection guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: only 'latest published' reviews are returned, ratings are 'evidence-separated', and excerpts are explicitly not consensus or recommendations, which shapes how an agent should interpret and cite output.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the return contents are front-loaded and the interpretive caveat follows. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence mixes usage guidance with output caveats.

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?

With no output schema, the description does convey what comes back (reviews, ratings, brief), but omits volume/pagination, error behavior for a missing or unpublished offering, and how offering_id is sourced. Adequate but with clear gaps for a retrieval 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 0% and the description never explains the single required offering_id — its format, or that it is obtained from find_offerings. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one product/service') and enumerates the returned payload (reviews, evidence-separated ratings, experience brief). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_reputation or find_offerings.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as find_offerings for discovery versus get_offering for retrieval by id. The citation directive hints at usage but does not route the agent between sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by restricting the data exposed to just draft ID and status, excluding other drafts and raw files.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the returned scope, with no filler. Every clause earns its place by either defining the output or bounding access.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates what is returned (draft ID and status), which compensates well. The one gap is that it does not explain how the review:prepare token is supplied, given the schema takes no parameters.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail because none exist; the only implicit input, the review:prepare token, is not parameterized in the schema.

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 (read) and a narrowly scoped resource (the draft ID and status tied to a review:prepare token). The scope phrases 'only' and 'this review:prepare token' clearly separate it from read-heavy sibling tools, though no sibling is named directly.

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?

Usage is implied: call it to inspect the draft associated with a prepare token, and the 'No access to other drafts or raw files' clause sets a negative boundary. However, it never states explicitly when to prefer this over siblings like get_offering or submit_review, nor any prerequisite ordering (e.g., after prepare_review).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a real behavioral note — "Identity is consumer-supplied" — and a result-scoping constraint ("with published experiences"), which is context beyond the annotations. It still says nothing about pagination or response shape, so this is modest added value.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The trailing clause about identity and feedback is compact but slightly cryptic, costing a little clarity rather than length.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema to explain, the description only needs to cover scope and usage. It establishes that results are seller offerings with published experiences, but leaves the get_product vs listing-offerings ambiguity and the meaning of "identity is consumer-supplied" unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps for a 1-param read 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 coverage is 0% and the single required parameter has no description. The description does reference the product ID, implicitly confirming that the param selects the product whose offerings are returned, but it adds no format, ID scheme, or validation detail. Marginal compensation for the coverage gap.

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 gives a verb ("List") and a resource ("seller-specific offerings for a product ID"), but the resource conflicts with the tool name get_product, which suggests retrieving a product rather than listing offerings. The qualifier "with published experiences" is vague and does not distinguish this from siblings like find_offerings or get_offering. The purpose is inferable but not crisp.

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?

"Keep seller service feedback separate" hints at scope boundaries but names no alternative tool and states no condition for choosing this over find_offerings/get_offering. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage has to be inferred entirely.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral value beyond them: 'Transaction verification is always false' discloses a data characteristic the agent would otherwise misread, and the untrusted-data warning is an explicit safety directive. It stops short of describing pagination, size limits, or return shape.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, a data caveat, and a handling rule. The purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 single-parameter read tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile, the description covers purpose, a non-obvious data caveat, and a prompt-injection warning. The only gap is the undocumented merchant_id and the absence of any note on result volume, which is minor here.

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?

There is one parameter (merchant_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. While merchant_id is fairly self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning about its format, source, or what happens if it is invalid.

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 (read) and resource (feedback/reputation) with a scoping qualifier ('grouped by evidence basis'). It is understandable on its own, but it never names or contrasts with any sibling tool (e.g., get_preparation, prepare_review), so differentiation is left to the name.

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 offers no when-to-use context, prerequisites, or alternatives. Nothing tells the agent when get_reputation is the right call versus the other review-related siblings, so usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: no credentials are required, and the guardrail against inventing missing experiences or files sets expectations about how results should be treated.

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?

Two short sentences, with the action and entry-point cue ("Start here") front-loaded, followed by the list of returned content and the guardrail. There is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations gaps, the description enumerates what the caller receives (requirements, accepted evidence types, minimum inputs, confirmation steps). Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 under the scoring rules. The description correctly adds nothing about parameter syntax because there is none, and the schema is fully closed with additionalProperties=false.

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 pairs a specific verb (read) with a specific resource (current submission requirements) and enumerates the content returned: accepted private evidence, minimum inputs, and consumer confirmation steps. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_preparation or upload_evidence, so it stops short of full sibling 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?

"Start here" gives a clear sequencing cue that this is the entry-point call before prepare_review/submit_review, which is meaningful context for an agent picking among eleven siblings. However, no alternative is named and no when-not condition is stated, so it is context rather than explicit routing.

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

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnly=false, so mutability is already flagged; the description adds real value by saying the resulting proposal is immutable, that it neither confirms nor publishes, and that a confirmation URL is returned so the consumer can verify text, scores and evidence. It still does not explain why the call is destructive (e.g., token consumption/one-shot semantics).

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?

Four densely packed sentences, each covering a distinct concern (token/output, target branching, ratings rule, lifecycle/return). The key scoping constraint is front-loaded and no sentence is filler.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a nine-parameter nested schema, no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition covers the critical target branching and lifecycle but omits the meaning of feedback, evidence_id, incentivized and the context object. Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It usefully explains the target.offering_id vs seller-identity branching and the optionality of ratings, but says nothing about feedback, evidence_id, incentivized, or the context sub-fields, leaving several required and complex parameters unexplained.

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 and resource ('prepare one immutable proposal') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the publish/confirm step ('This does not confirm or publish it'), which separates it from sibling submit_review. An agent knows it is building a draft proposal for review, not finalizing one.

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?

Gives conditional guidance on the two mutually exclusive paths: use target.offering_id and omit merchant_name/merchant_website/offering to reuse a public target, otherwise supply seller identity and display name. It also states ratings are optional and 'never guess scores'. It does not, however, route against other siblings such as resolve_review_target or get_preparation.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent behavior; the description's 'publish or replace' is consistent with that and clarifies that an existing response is overwritten. It also adds genuinely new context beyond annotations: an authorization prerequisite (approved merchant:reply token) and a business-scoping constraint.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, leading with the action before the qualifying conditions. It is dense with domain jargon ('merchant:reply token') but not padded.

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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, authorization prerequisite, and scope, which is a reasonable floor. It still omits what the body parameter should contain and the concrete effect of replacing an existing response, leaving an agent to guess at the destructive behavior's details.

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 0% for two required parameters (review_id, body), so the description must carry the meaning and largely fails to. It only implies that 'body' is the merchant response text via 'merchant response'; review_id is never explained, nor are format or length expectations.

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 verb pair (publish/replace) and the resource (merchant response), and clarifies it is a reply to a review rather than a submission or preparation step. It does not explicitly name siblings like submit_review or prepare_review, so differentiation relies on inference from the 'merchant:reply token' phrase.

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 phrase 'under an approved merchant:reply token' implies a prerequisite step (a token must already be approved, likely via prepare_review) and bounds usage to that business. However, it never states when to choose this tool over siblings such as submit_review or prepare_review, leaving usage only implied.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: IDs are reserved deterministically but persisted only via a review, there is no transaction or merchant verification, and names yield candidates only with no fuzzy auto-merge. These are meaningful behavioral caveats an agent could not infer from 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?

Five dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and constraints following. Telegraphic phrasing ('Names only return candidates; no fuzzy auto-merge') is efficient, though slightly clipped at the cost of readability.

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 10-parameter, zero-coverage resolver with no output schema, the description explains some return semantics (candidates, no auto-merge) but omits parameter-level meaning, precedence when multiple identifiers are supplied, and the shape of the resolved identity. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% across 10 optional parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It hints at input categories (URLs, marketplace + seller/listing IDs, names) but never maps to specific fields, leaving gtin, variant, offering_id, product_name and merchant_name entirely undocumented and the mutual-exclusivity of inputs unstated.

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 ('Resolve') and resource ('public store/product URLs or marketplace domain + seller/listing IDs to stable identities'), so the agent knows it maps external identifiers to canonical IDs. It is distinguishable from sibling lookups like get_product/find_offerings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

'Always ask the consumer to check seller and variant' gives one operating instruction, and 'saved only with a review' implies the pre-review context. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or a named alternative among the find_/get_ siblings, so selection guidance is only implied.

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

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

Annotations declare a destructive, non-idempotent write; the description adds real context beyond them — that the outcome may be immediate publication or human-review queuing, that a distinct submit token is required, and a warning not to conflate publication with transaction verification. It stops short of covering irreversibility or duplicate-submission behavior that the destructive/non-idempotent hints imply.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its required input, then the branching outcome, then the caveat. Each sentence carries distinct information; no filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the outcome variability, the status-reading instruction, and the semantic caveat, which is enough for correct invocation. Only the draft_id semantics and duplicate-submission risk are left unaddressed.

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?

Only one parameter (draft_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It references the 'consumer-confirmed draft' and a separate review:submit token, but never clarifies what draft_id refers to or where the token comes from — and the token isn't even a parameter here.

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 ('Submit') and resource ('consumer-confirmed draft'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling prepare_review that produces the draft. The jargon 'review:submit token' and 'self-reported review' are domain-specific but do identify the operation.

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?

It implies the prerequisite (a draft plus its separate review:submit token) and tells the agent to read the returned status, which is useful. However, it never explicitly states when to use this instead of prepare_review or reply_to_review, leaving routing to inference.

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

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

Annotations already flag the write/destructive/non-idempotent profile, and the description adds genuinely new operational context: size ceiling, accepted MIME types, base64 transport, auth scope, token expiry window, and a consumer-consent policy. It does not explain what happens on success or why the operation is destructive, keeping it below a 5.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the most decision-critical facts (what it accepts, size, dependency) front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter upload tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, limits, consent policy, and encoding. The only gap is post-upload behavior (return value, duplicate handling despite non-idempotentHint), which is minor.

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 0% for the single file_base64 parameter, so the description must compensate — and it does, specifying encoding (base64), accepted formats, and the 5 MiB cap. It does not describe the exact base64 payload shape or whether a filename accompanies it, so not a 5.

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?

Specific verb+resource (upload evidence) with tight qualifiers: private, consumer-authorized, PDF/PNG/JPEG, max 5 MiB, base64. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like submit_review or prepare_review without opening any schema.

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 states a hard prerequisite ('Requires review:prepare via OAuth or a one-hour manual Bearer token'), which tells the agent this tool belongs to the review-preparation flow. It does not name an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use case, so it falls short of a 5.

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