Review response

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds a concrete, important side effect: 'costs credits from the account wallet.' It also discloses that the result includes triage output (issues to log and escalation need), which is useful since readOnlyHint is false and no output schema exists.

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 short sentences with no filler; the transformation is front-loaded and the cost warning earns its place at the end. Every word adds information.

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?

The description names the key outputs (public response, issues to log, escalation flag), warns about credit cost, and the schema covers the remaining parameters. It is not exhaustive—no output format or when-not-to-use guidance—but it is complete enough for selection and basic invocation.

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 75%, so the schema already documents rating, review, and resolution. The description does not add meaning to individual parameters or mention how business.voice/name interact with 'brand-safe,' so it does not improve on the schema baseline.

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 uses an arrow to convey a clear transformation: a customer review becomes a brand-safe public response, issues to log, and an escalation flag. It is specific to review replies and distinct from generic siblings like parserail_reply, though it never names an alternative or uses an explicit verb like 'generate'.

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 'a customer review → a brand-safe public response' gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a user has review text and needs a public reply. It does not state exclusions or alternatives, but the review-specific framing makes the intended use unambiguous.

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