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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, open-world mutation; the description adds concrete value on top with a 10/hour/IP rate limit and the self-review prohibition. It does not discuss reversibility or deletion of reviews, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then policy constraints, then args. The bilingual title line ('/ 스킬 리뷰 작성') is a mild redundancy, but overall the structure is tight 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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, and the policy block covers the key operational constraints for a 4-parameter mutation tool. Only minor gaps remain around failure modes and reversibility.

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 rating bounds, comment length, api_key handling, and skill_id format. The description's Args block mostly restates these (1~5 integer, optional comment up to 2000 chars) rather than adding new meaning.

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 and resource ('Post a review and rating for a skill') and clarifies the upsert semantics ('creates, or updates your existing review'). An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 policy block gives clear when-to-use and when-not context: one review per user per skill, re-calls update rather than duplicate, and self-registered skills are off-limits. No sibling alternative exists for reviewing, so lacking an explicit alternative reference is acceptable.

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