food_review_submit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers almost nothing. It does not say whether the review is actually persisted, what token/authentication is required, whether submission is reversible or editable, or how the dry-run mode differs from a real submission.

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?

It is a single short phrase, so there is no bloat, but brevity here comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. The one qualifier it does include, '(dry-run)', raises more questions than it answers.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero field documentation, this description is far short of what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Nothing about side effects, idempotency, or required inputs is covered.

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% and the description explains none of the five parameters. Critical semantics are missing, notably what 'confirm' does (likely gating the actual post vs. dry-run), what 'token' authenticates, and whether 'order-id' must reference a completed order.

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 names a verb ('Post') and a resource ('order review'), which is enough to distinguish it from read-oriented siblings like food_reviews. However, the parenthetical '(dry-run)' makes the actual outcome ambiguous: it is unclear whether the call submits a real review or merely simulates one. That ambiguity undermines a would-be clear purpose.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist (e.g., having a completed order), or how it relates to siblings such as food_reviews. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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