review_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: auth requirements (env var, key setting), anti-gaming rules (trust score, self-review block, collusion block, one review per exchange, influence caps), and return type. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with clear sections (auth, rules, return value). It is slightly verbose but all content is valuable. Front-loaded purpose sentence works well.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all necessary context: auth setup, parameter semantics, anti-gaming rules, and return value. No gaps remain.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning to each parameter: it explains the purpose of caller_agent_id and receiver_agent_id, clarifies that success indicates completion, and defines score's range (1-10). This goes well beyond the schema's bare field names.

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 action ('Submit a trust review'), the resource ('after a confirmed exchange'), and the constraint ('with another agent'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on trust reviews, which no other sibling tool covers.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (after an exchange) and provides a rejection condition (no real prior exchange). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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