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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly discloses the result composition: per-review fields (rating, text, verified flag, date, reviewer name) and the Google rating/count. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or empty-result behavior, but the read-only nature is apparent from 'Get'.

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?

One sentence, no filler, front-loaded with the action and then the payload details. It earns its place by specifying exactly what fields are included.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return shape and distinguishes Bezal reviews from Google rating. It is missing details on limit semantics and ordering, but the schema covers defaults and constraints, making this adequate.

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 fully documents both parameters (business_id and limit) with descriptions and constraints, so the description adds little beyond indicating the business context. Per the baseline, 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get reviews for a specific business', and enumerates the exact data returned (Bezal reviews plus Google rating and count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_business, which focus on business details rather than review content.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving reviews for a given business, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools like get_business or compare_businesses could overlap, so an explicit usage note would help.

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