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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). Beyond that the description discloses what is NOT returned (private receipt, author identity) and a concrete failure mode: withdrawn/unpublished reviews return not found. That is genuine behavioral context an agent cannot get from 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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core scope (single published read) is front-loaded ahead of the return/omission and error details.

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 and one param, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the returned fields (source, merchant, evidence level, timestamps), the privacy exclusions, and the not-found behavior for withdrawn/unpublished reviews.

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?

There is one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the semantics. It only restates that lookup is 'by review_id' without format, source, or how to obtain the id, adding little beyond the schema field name.

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 precise verb+resource: read ONE published experience by review_id. The cardinality ('one' vs the list-oriented find_reviews sibling) and the required identifier make the tool instantly distinguishable from the find_* siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'by review_id' prerequisite and the 'published' scope, but the description never explicitly routes the agent here versus find_reviews or resolve_review_target. No explicit when-not or alternative is named.

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