t2000_job_review

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: receipt-bound to the Job object, role-dependent visibility (public/private depending on buyer/seller and Agent ID/Passport status), re-run to edit, free (one signed message, no funds spent). This is exceptionally transparent for an action 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action and eligibility. It is information-dense but not bloated; the CLI mirror line is minor but useful context.

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 covers complex role-aware privacy behavior, edit capability, cost, and eligibility. It does not describe the return value, but given the action's simplicity and lack of output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 covers all 3 parameters with full descriptions (100%). The description restates the star range and job eligibility but adds no significant parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Rate a RELEASED job you were party to, 1–5 stars') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling job tools (e.g., job_open, job_claim, job_settle) by focusing exclusively on post-release review with a star rating.

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 specifies when to use: after a job is released and only if the wallet was party to it. Role-aware behavior (buyer vs seller) further clarifies usage context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the conditions are clear and unique among siblings.

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