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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive write in a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the code is single-use ('einmalig') and originates from a completed placement, which the agent needs in order to set expectations. It still says nothing about moderation, publication timing, or what happens with an already-consumed code.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the critical prerequisite (the code) is stated immediately. It is arguably too terse for a review-submission tool, but nothing is wasted.

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 5 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description covers the gating prerequisite but omits the outcome: whether the review is published immediately, moderated, or tied to the consent flag. An agent can call the tool correctly, but cannot set the user's expectations about what happens next.

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 most parameters; the baseline is 3. The description adds the code format (XXXX-XXXX) beyond the schema's generic 'Bewertungscode', but stays silent on stars, comment, consent, and reviewer_name, so the added value is limited.

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 action (submitting a review) and names the required artifact (the one-time review code in XXXX-XXXX format), so the agent understands what the tool consumes. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling provider_reviews, which also concerns reviews.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the code is described as one the customer received after a placement ('nach einer Vermittlung'), which tells the agent this is a post-transaction, customer-facing action. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance, e.g. how this relates to provider_reviews or what to do if the customer has no code.

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