request_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the requirement that confirm must be true for the request to proceed. However, it does not mention side effects, rate limits, or whether the action is destructive. The behavioral insight is limited to one constraint.

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 very concise—two short sentences. It front-loads the purpose and a critical requirement. No unnecessary words. However, the use of Spanish may limit understanding for English-only models, but conciseness itself is good.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, with 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description lacks complete context. It fails to explain order_id and marketplace, and does not clarify behavior when confirm is false. The tool is simple but the description is incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should clarify parameters. It only addresses 'confirm', stating it must be true, and ignores the required 'order_id' and optional 'marketplace'. This adds some meaning but leaves key parameters unexplained.

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: requesting a review from the buyer. The verb 'Solicitar' and resource 'review al comprador' are specific, and the tool name aligns. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'check_review_eligibility' or 'get_repeat_purchases', but the purpose is still clear.

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 description provides a single guideline: 'Requiere confirm=True', indicating a prerequisite for the tool to work. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information, nor comparison to alternative tools. This is minimal guidance.

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