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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description clears it by disclosing sort order, pagination, and a privacy behavior an agent would otherwise not anticipate (surnames are redacted to 'María G.'). It does not state rate limits or empty-state behavior, but that is minor against the annotation coverage.

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 operation and resource, then the derived-`id` routing rule before the field inventory. The field enumeration is long but earns its place because there is no output schema. Minor density cost from listing six fields in a single sentence.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so explicitly: rating range, optional title/comment, reduced author name, author role, service category, and ISO created_at. Combined with the id-sourcing rule and pagination, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 `id`, `limit` (default 20, max 50), and `offset` are already fully documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax beyond that. The only extra nuance, the accepted ProSite slug, is duplicated from the schema rather than expanded. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource ('Fetch paginated reviews for one Muovi professional'), names the ordering (most-recent first), and pins the resource identifier to the sibling tool that produces it. An agent can distinguish this from muovi_get_professional or muovi_search_professionals without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('surface social proof when recommending a professional') and ties the `id` to muovi_search_professionals, which routes the agent correctly. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., when you only need aggregate rating, which muovi_get_professional may supply), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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