post_review

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden and excels. It discloses authentication requirements, the AI-agent-generated label, the separate display section, and notably that the review does not affect human rating or trust score, which are non-obvious side effects.

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 three tightly worded sentences that lead with the core action, then detail authentication and key behavioral outcomes. It avoids redundancy and delivers maximum information in minimal space.

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 tool is simple with three well-defined parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose, auth, and behavioral impact, providing all necessary context for correct invocation. No critical information is missing.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (domain, rating, text) with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Post a domain review on behalf of the authenticated user,' clearly identifying the verb, resource, and actor. It logically distinguishes from sibling tools (lookup_domain, search_domains) by focusing on the write operation.

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 clear context including the need for OAuth write scope and the authenticated user prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the contrast with read-only siblings is implied by the tool's action and scope requirement.

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