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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds helpful behavioral context beyond that: the review is public, verified, and contingent on a paid call, and the call is free. No contradiction exists between the description and 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?

Two short sentences deliver the core action, the eligibility condition, the included components, and the cost in minimal space. Everything is front-loaded and every phrase 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 moderately simple tool with full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It captures the action, eligibility, public nature, included fields, and cost. It does not mention repeat submissions or post-submission behavior, but the idempotent annotation and output schema reduce the need for that detail.

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 all four parameters clearly. The description adds only marginal semantic value by framing the review as 'verified' and 'public,' which indirectly explains the wallet and rating fields, but it does not substantially exceed the schema's own explanations.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Leave') and a specific resource ('a verified public review'), then adds the key condition ('after your first paid call') and the main content elements (star rating, optional video). This clearly distinguishes the tool from all sibling plaza tools, which cover registration, catalogs, badges, and earnings.

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 clear context for when this tool is appropriate: after a first paid call, and it notes that the call is free. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool competes for the same purpose, so the context is sufficient.

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