trust_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one important behavior: reviews with proof-of-payment are marked as verified. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., permanence, editability, authentication requirements) or what happens on submission, so transparency is partial.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds a key behavioral detail. No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

The tool is a write operation with no annotations and no output schema. The description does not mention return values, prerequisites (e.g., whether the agent must be registered with trust_register), or how the review is linked to a specific transaction. This leaves significant gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool.

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%, and notable parameter descriptions already explain the verification effect of proof_of_payment. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating that proof-of-payment affects verification status, which the schema already covers.

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 verb ('Submit') and resource ('a review for an agent'), along with a clear context ('after a transaction'). This distinguishes it from siblings like trust_lookup, trust_register, and trust_list, which are not write/review operations.

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?

Provides a clear usage context: 'after a transaction'. This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling names suggest when other tools might be appropriate, so the guidance is adequate though not exhaustive.

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