Review who interacts with a note

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world), but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: how the verdict is derived (what the key does to others, repeated text, link density, bursts, web-of-trust), the explicit rule that behaviour outweighs trust, and the distinction between 'automated' and 'promotional-bot.'

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the remainder is a dense wall of text with nested quotes and semicolon-chained category definitions that is hard to parse. The information is relevant, yet the structure could be broken into clearer clauses without losing content.

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?

With no output schema, the description does explain what the tool returns (per-distinct-person verdicts) and how they are computed, which is the key burden. It stops short of describing the result shape or ordering, but the essential semantics are present for a 4-parameter triage tool.

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 genuine meaning for `trusted` ('give your own key... for a much better signal') and reinforces that `maxAuthors` prioritizes replies ('replies first'). It does not add format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 ('who replied to it, reacted to it or reposted it' for 'one note') and scopes the output (a per-person verdict). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like author_report, account_triage, and event_engagement.

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 clear operating context: it is 'a triage aid, not a verdict,' replies are examined first, and supplying your own key in `trusted` yields 'a much better signal.' It does not, however, name when to prefer it over siblings such as account_triage or event_engagement, so no explicit exclusions.

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