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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: which platforms are queried, that results are sorted newest first, and that answered/unanswered status is included. It does not mention pagination or how the default unansweredOnly=true filter changes the result set.

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 short sentences with no filler; the resource and scope come first and the routing hint is placed last. Every clause carries information.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows what it will get. The one gap is the schema's default unansweredOnly=true, which means the tool silently returns only unanswered reviews unless overridden — a behavior worth flagging in prose.

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 67%: maxRating and unansweredOnly are described in the schema, while limit is self-evident from its default/min/max bounds. The description's phrase 'whether they've been answered' loosely signals the unansweredOnly dimension but adds no format or filtering detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (Google Business and Facebook reviews on the user's connected accounts), the ordering (newest first), and the fields returned (rating, text, answered status). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling reply_to_review, which it explicitly names.

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 second sentence explicitly routes the agent to reply_to_review when the goal is to answer a review, giving a clear use-vs-alternative split. It stops short of stating exclusions against other list-style siblings (e.g., list_comments), so it is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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