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

Beyond the annotations it discloses several concrete behaviors: the moderator replies back, unfavorable genuine reviews are not removed without evidence, each call is confirmed by default but that can be switched off, and it 'reaches other people' so user confirmation is required before each call. This is meaningfully richer than the readOnly/openWorld/destructive hints.

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 first sentence front-loads the core purpose, but the second sentence largely restates it ('Sends your comments about one review to a Hostelworld moderator, who reviews it and replies to you'). The repeated 'Hostelworld' branding and the redundant openers cost it efficiency.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and meaningful annotations, the description covers the action, the prerequisite evidence, the confirmation requirement, and the auth need. It does not explain the response shape, but it notes that a moderator replies to the user, which is adequate given no output schema exists.

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, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the reason parameter ('include the evidence') and implies a single review is targeted but adds no format or syntax detail beyond 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: sending a review to a Hostelworld moderator when it breaks the review guidelines. This clearly distinguishes the action from sibling tools like hostelworld_reply_to_review (which replies to the reviewer) and hostelworld_list_reviews. However, the tool name 'query_review' suggests a read operation and the description never explicitly names the sibling it is not, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 states the trigger condition ('when you believe it breaks the review guidelines') and the evidentiary prerequisite ('include the evidence'). It also covers the confirmation policy and API-key requirement. It stops short of explicit when-not or naming reply_to_review as the alternative.

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