submit_review

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'AI agent scoring system' and 'suggest... scores... for their approval,' implying a user confirmation step, but does not clarify whether submission is immediate or requires final confirmation. It also omits details on destructive effects, permissions needed, or how the review is processed after submission.

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 description is extremely concise: two sentences plus an important note. The key action and prerequisite are front-loaded. No redundant words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the 12 parameters, 5 required, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, the full workflow (user approval step is hinted but not detailed), or how the AI agent interacts. A tool of this complexity needs more context to be fully usable.

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 92%, so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it notes scores are 1-10 (matching schema) but gives no extra context for parameters like 'modelUsed' or 'processingTime'. The value added is minimal.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Submit a comprehensive peer review'. It specifies the context ('with AI agent scoring system') and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_reviews' or 'update_review' by focusing on submission. The verb 'submit' uniquely identifies this tool's role.

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 description provides guidance to 'read and analyze the full paper' before submitting and to suggest scores and reasoning for user approval. However, it does not explicitly indicate when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'update_review' for revisions. The guidance is implicit but lacks exclusions.

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