post_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses critical behaviors: requires OAuth 'write' scope, the review is labeled AI-agent-generated, shown in a separate section, and does not affect human trust rating. This goes well beyond a basic write operation description.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or redundancy.

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 the purpose, auth requirement, and behavioral outcomes. It doesn't mention the response format or error scenarios, but since there is no output schema, these are not strictly required. The key details for correct invocation are present, making it nearly complete.

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 100%, so the schema already fully explains the three parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but that is unnecessary. It does add the OAuth prerequisite, but that is more behavioral context than parameter semantics. Baseline 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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Post a company review on behalf of the authenticated user.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (lookup_company, search_companies) which are read-oriented, whereas this is a 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?

Provides clear context for when to use: posting a review on behalf of the user. It mentions the prerequisite OAuth token with write scope. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names make the distinction obvious.

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