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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). It discloses critical behavioral details: requires a verified email, exactly one review per install, aggregate carries across template versions, auto-hold for bodies containing links/contact emails, deduped reports per account, editable response with null to clear, and aggregate adjustments on remove. This fully compensates for the lack of detailed annotation semantics and provides high transparency.

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 a single dense paragraph but well-structured by action, progressing from create to respond to report to remove/unhold. Each sentence explains a distinct action or constraint without excessive fluff. While long, it earns its length given the complexity of five sub-operations. Could be slightly improved with bullet points, but it remains readable and scannable.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 actions, 9 parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers permission levels (verified email, relay operators), state changes (one review per install, aggregate carrying across versions), moderation behavior (auto-hold, unhold), and edge cases (null clearing, deduplication). The only minor omission is exact return values, but the absence of an output schema makes that acceptable.

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 100% with every parameter described, which meets the baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining cross-parameter constraints (e.g., 'identifying it by `template` or by `handle` plus `slug`', 'null clears it', 'one report per account'). It clarifies the action-specific parameter usage, enhancing the agent's understanding of how parameters interact.

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 clear scope statement: 'Ratings and reviews of community templates, responses from a template's own publisher, and, for relay operators, moderation.' It then enumerates five distinct actions with specific verbs (create, respond, report, remove, unhold) and their targets (templates, reviews, moderators). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'feedback' and 'taste' by focusing on the community review lifecycle.

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 provides clear context for when to use each action: create is for installed templates with verified email, respond is for one's own template line, report is for flagging, remove/unhold are relay-operator-only. It implies exclusions (e.g., relay operators only for moderation) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'when not to use.' The context is strong enough for an agent to select appropriate actions.

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