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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds information annotations cannot convey: the reply is publicly visible on the Feefo page, cannot be undone through this server, and can trigger a customer email via notify_customer. This materially raises the agent's caution level above the non-destructive annotation.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation class and effect, then the ID caveat, then the confirmation requirement. No filler sentences and no repetition of schema-declared constraints.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the safety profile, visibility, irreversibility, and the ID sourcing that most commonly causes failures. The only gap is that it never indicates what a successful call returns (reply id or status), which the agent must discover empirically.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a real disambiguation for review_id: it is the id of the service or product element from feefo_list_reviews, not the outer review url id. It also frames notify_customer as an optional email, reinforcing the schema default.

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?

Opens with an explicit verb and resource ("publish a public reply to a review") scoped to "your Feefo account", and the "WRITE:" prefix immediately separates it from the read-only siblings (get_review, list_reviews, summary). An agent can classify the operation 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?

Gives concrete workflow guidance: confirm wording with the user first, and get review_id from feefo_list_reviews. It names the sibling to use for the prerequisite step. It stops short of stating when NOT to reply (e.g., already-replied reviews or read-only accounts), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not coverage.

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