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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the visibility lifecycle ('hidden until counterparty reviews OR 14 days elapse') and the auth modes ('NextAuth session and live bearer; MCP path uses bearer'). It omits editability, rate limits, and what the response contains, keeping it just short of 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?

The visibility rule is stated twice ('Stays hidden until counterparty reviews OR 14d elapses' and again as 'Visibility holds at hidden until the counterparty also reviews, or 14 days elapse'), and the when-to-use condition is likewise duplicated in the lead-in and the body. Useful content, but the repetition is waste.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must anchor the call; it covers the trigger condition, the visibility side-effect, and auth modes. It does not describe the returned review object or any post-conditions beyond visibility, leaving a small gap for a 5-param mutation.

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 80%, so the schema already documents rating, comment, category, claim_id, and even the idempotency_key replay semantics. The description's '1-5 star' phrasing merely restates the schema's min/max, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Submit a 1-5 star review on a ... claim') and scopes it to a precise precondition ('terminal (released/refunded)'). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like open_dispute or submit_evidence without opening any 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 'When to use' lead-in gives an explicit trigger ('Rate a terminal (released or refunded) claim'), which tells the agent the required state before calling. However, no alternative is named (e.g. what to use for non-terminal claims), so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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