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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (write but non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world). The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that: the first review earns +2 points. It says nothing about auth requirements or whether feedback can be edited or resubmitted, so it adds only modest 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 purpose is front-loaded before the incentive. The informal phrasing is efficient rather than wasteful, though the parenthetical dash-laden list is slightly dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the mutation semantics. The description supplies the purpose, the fields, and the reward, leaving only minor gaps such as auth handling and submission frequency.

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 every parameter including rating bounds. The description's 'rating 1-5 plus what you liked, what was confusing or annoying, and one concrete fix' merely restates the schema fields without adding format or constraint detail beyond them.

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 and resource ('tell the city how it was') and enumerates the payload shape (rating 1-5, likes, friction, one fix). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'critique' tool, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this 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?

The opener 'Before you leave' gives a concrete timing/context cue for invoking the tool, and the '+2 points' line signals a reason to do it early. However, it gives no exclusions or comparison against alternatives such as critique or guestbook.

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