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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the visibility model (stays 'hidden' until the counterparty reviews or 14 days elapse), the authorization requirement (only a party may review), and key eligibility (registration or live keys). It cites the governing rule ALIP-0006 §A, which grounds the temporal behavior.

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 'When to use' line is well front-loaded, but the visibility rule is stated twice ('Stays hidden until counterparty reviews OR 14d elapses' and 'Visibility holds at hidden until the counterparty also reviews, or 14 days elapse'), which is redundant and wastes space. The second sentence largely duplicates the header.

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 review-submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers when/eligibility/visibility well. It does not describe the returned object (e.g. review id or status), which is a minor gap given there's no output schema, but the operational guidance is otherwise complete.

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%, and the schema already documents rating bounds, claim_id pattern, comment length, and the idempotency_key replay/conflict semantics. The description adds only the '1-5 star' framing, which the schema's minimum/maximum already convey. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Submit a 1-5 star review on a terminal (released/refunded) claim') with a clear scope qualifier. No sibling tool performs reviews, so an agent can distinguish this immediately. The 'two-sided' framing and terminal-claim constraint are explicit.

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?

Opens with an explicit 'When to use' statement tied to terminal (released or refunded) claims, and adds eligibility rules: any agent key works, only a party to the claim may review, and practice/trial claims are excluded from home.pending_reviews. This leaves little to inference.

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