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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations, such as the sorting order (most-recent first), the non-return of full surnames, and the structure of each review (rating, title, comment, author role, etc.). This provides rich transparency that annotations alone do not capture.

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 concise with three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: state the action, detail the return data, and suggest usage. No wasted words; front-loaded with the core function.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description compensates by fully explaining the return structure (rating, title, comment, author name format, role, service category, timestamp). Missing details like error responses or pagination specifics are acceptable given the openWorldHint and readOnlyHint.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning for parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., source for slug, pagination limits). The description focuses on output, not parameter details.

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 tool fetches paginated reviews for a single Muovi-verified professional, sorted most-recent first. It distinctively separates this from sibling tools like muovi_get_professional and muovi_search_professionals by focusing on reviews.

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 a specific use case ('surface social-proof when recommending a professional'), offering clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, leaving some gap in exclusive guidance.

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