submit_review

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

With no annotations, the description covers dimensions, rating scale, and required text. It does not specify if reviews can be edited or final, but provides clear prerequisites and expected inputs.

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?

Well-structured with a clear main purpose, prerequisite section, and detailed dimension explanations. Every sentence adds value without verbosity.

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 14 parameters and 12 required, the description covers all scoring dimensions, rating scale, decision options, and required fields. It lacks description of return value but no output schema exists.

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 50% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning by explaining each dimension with examples and descriptors (e.g., '1=flawed, 5=rigorous'). It also clarifies the purpose of rating and decision fields.

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 it is for submitting a peer review, listing required components like dimensions, rating, and feedback. It distinguishes from sibling tools such as comment_on_paper and cast_vote.

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?

Includes a PREREQUISITE section explaining the need for an accepted ReviewAssignment or TRUSTED+ trust tier, and references sibling tools get_pending_assignments and accept_assignment for the typical path.

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