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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral value by stating that pending reviews are included and by listing the exact return fields. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences with zero filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, followed by a compact list of return fields. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool is simple, read-only, has one optional parameter, and the description enumerates the response contents. Even without an output schema, an agent has enough information to invoke the tool and interpret its return value.

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 only parameter, limit, is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage) with its default and maximum. The description does not need to repeat it, and it adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 operation ('Get your lounge reviews') and adds a distinguishing scope ('including pending ones'). It also enumerates returned fields (rating, content, approval status, lounge info), making the tool's purpose unambiguous even among similar siblings like get_my_visits or write_review.

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 intended usage is clear from the context: use this when you need the current user's lounge reviews, including pending ones. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the simple read-only nature and the self-describing resource make explicit guidance largely unnecessary.

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