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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but omits meaningful traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, output shape, or whether repeated requests are safe.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the amount of information it conveys.

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 schema is fully described, which covers the four parameters, and the purpose is understandable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves behavioral and return-value context largely implicit.

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 input schema already documents fid, url, page, and sort_by in detail. The description only repeats that a Google Maps URL or FID is used and adds no additional semantics 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: scraping Google Maps reviews for a place. It also names the accepted identifiers (URL or FID), making the purpose clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling photo/search scrapers beyond the resource name.

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?

It implies usage by saying reviews are scraped for a place, but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives such as the photos or search scrapers. The mention of URL/FID is parameter information rather than usage guidance.

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