submit_review

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It discloses wallet assignment, cost (5 Scarab), and potential rewards. However, it does not mention idempotency, updateability, error cases, or confirmation of submission, which are important for a write operation.

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 sentences, no filler. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage timing, then cost/reward. 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?

No output schema, so return format is missing. The tool is simple with 4 params, but missing what the agent gets back (e.g., review ID, success status). Adequate but not complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by advising on comment quality: 'cite tx hashes, completion rates, or concrete evidence for higher quality scores,' which enhances parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states verb and resource: 'Submit a review for an on-chain entity (agent, token, protocol).' It also specifies when to use, distinguishing it from read-only siblings like get_agent_reputation or vote_review.

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 says 'Use after completing a job, swap, or interaction,' providing clear context. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide.

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