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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it explicitly includes pending reviews and specifies the response contents (rating, content, approval status, lounge info). This gives an agent useful expectations that structured fields do not convey.

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 two concise sentences with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the most important behavioral detail (pending reviews) and return fields.

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?

For a simple read-only getter with one optional parameter, the description is complete. It states what is returned, including the approval status and lounge info, and the annotations already cover the safety profile. No critical information is missing.

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 documented in the input schema with default and maximum values, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds nothing about limit, 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get your lounge reviews.' It also clarifies scope by mentioning pending ones and listing the returned fields, making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like lounge_get_my_visits or lounge_get_my_wishlist.

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 use is directly stated: retrieve the calling user's lounge reviews, including pending ones. It does not name sibling alternatives like lounge_write_review or lounge_update_review, but those are clearly different operations, so there is no real ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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