trust_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the verification effect of proof-of-payment, but it does not mention whether the review is public, editable, or any side effects beyond submitting. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and adds the most critical behavioral nuance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. It explains the core purpose and the verification mechanism. However, it lacks explicit mention of optional parameters like reviewer_pubkey, though the schema covers that.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it only reiterates the verification behavior tied to proof_of_payment. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 review') and the specific context ('after a transaction'). It also adds the distinctive behavior that proof-of-payment results in a 'verified' status, which differentiates it from sibling tools like trust_endorse or trust_dispute.

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 phrase 'after a transaction' provides clear usage context, indicating this tool is intended for post-transaction reviews. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or list when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is sufficient for correct selection among siblings.

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