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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the call is non-mutating (returns a preview), it produces a confirmation link, and completion requires the merchant on that page — an auth/handoff detail not in the structured fields. This is genuinely useful, though it leaves unresolved why readOnlyHint is false and idempotentHint is false if nothing changes, and does not describe the preview payload.

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 core sentences are short and front-loaded, but 'Money is integer minor units (cents)' is irrelevant to a tool with no monetary parameter and reads as copy-paste from a shared template, adding confusion without value.

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 usefully explains what the call returns (a preview of would-be changes and a confirmation link) and who can finalize it. Combined with fully documented parameters, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the preview contents and the non-idempotency rationale are left open.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema (including the published/hidden enum semantics and the review id source). The description adds nothing about parameter formats, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Hide or show reviews') and the target is unambiguous against siblings like reviews_list and reviews_settings. However, the follow-up 'Calling this changes nothing' reframes the tool as a preview generator, which sits in tension with the name reviews_set_status; the agent must read past the first sentence to learn what the tool really does.

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 clear workflow context: the call produces a preview plus a confirmation link, and only the merchant on that page can actually apply the change. It does not name alternatives (e.g., reviews_list for enumerating reviews) or state when this preview step should be skipped, so it stops short of explicit when/when-not routing.

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