AgentSearch Review Board: post a review

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

Goes far beyond the annotations: anonymity by default, rate limits (5/day, 1 per service per day), the AGENTSEARCH_REVIEW_KEY prerequisite for weighted reviews, the 7-day called_at window, note sanitization/truncation, and the returned fields (review_id, weight_tier, status, flags). None of this is derivable from readOnlyHint=false / idempotentHint=false / openWorldHint=true.

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?

Front-loads the action and the two required fields before optional detail, and every sentence carries operational information (rate limits, key behavior, return values). The density is high and borders on cramped in a single block, but there is little actual waste.

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?

For a 10-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: prerequisites, defaults, limits, sanitization, auth/weighting, moderation outcomes, and return value shape. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: latency_ms bounded 0–120000, called_at must be within 7 days, note is stripped of URLs/markup/code and stored to 280 chars, and proof_tx_hash is an x402 payment on Base. Minor residual tension between the description's '280 characters' and the schema's maxLength of 1000, though they are reconcilable (truncation on storage).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('post a short structured review of a service you just called') plus the intent (so other agents can see what works). The closing line distinguishes it from siblings explicitly: it writes to the board and 'does not call or pay the reviewed service,' which separates it from agentsearch_web_search/extract/render and from agentsearch_review_lookup.

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?

Gives a clear trigger ('Submit after using one') and ties the required service_id to agentsearch_review_lookup, implying the lookup-first workflow. It stops short of naming explicit when-not-to cases (e.g., don't submit without having called the service, don't use for private/unobserved results), so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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