datahub_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the review is public (via schema comment description, not in description) but does not state whether ratings can be updated, if multiple reviews per dataset are allowed, error states beyond rejection, or if changes are irreversible. This is sparse for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences with only essential information: action, constraint, and scope. No wasted words, front-loaded with key purpose.

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?

With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers core action and constraint but omits important details: success behavior, error messages, whether review can be edited/deleted, and full public exposure. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so the description adds minimal value beyond schema. It mentions 'optional comment' and '1-5 stars,' which are already in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action: 'Rate a DataHub dataset you have purchased (1-5 stars, optional comment).' It uses a specific verb ('rate') and resource ('dataset'), and the 'verified-purchase only' condition distinguishes it from siblings like datahub_buy or datahub_download.

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?

Explicit condition: 'Verified-purchase only: the marketplace rejects wallets without a receipt for the dataset.' This tells the agent when to use (only after purchase) and implies when not to (if no receipt). Also clarifies 'No payment involved,' differentiating from transaction tools. No explicit alternatives, but context signals provide sibling names.

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