preview-review-requestsPreviews explicit completed jobs for review requests, including eligibility and skip reasons, without sending anything.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | No | Optional review-request channel preference. | |
| job_ids | No | Explicit job IDs to evaluate. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description reinforces this with 'without sending anything.' It further discloses that the tool evaluates eligibility and reports skip reasons, adding meaningful behavioral context beyond the 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?
A single sentence of about 15 words that front-loads the verb and scope, then adds the critical no-side-effect guarantee. There is no filler or redundant restatement.
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 two-parameter read-only preview tool, the description covers purpose, side-effect profile, and the nature of the output. The lack of an output schema is partially offset by mentioning eligibility and skip reasons, though behavior when job_ids is omitted is left unclear.
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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter meanings are already fully documented. The description adds a 'completed jobs' qualifier relevant to job_ids but does not elaborate on channel semantics, so it neither meaningfully enhances nor conflicts with the schema.
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, 'Previews,' and identifies both the resource ('completed jobs for review requests') and a distinctive output ('eligibility and skip reasons'). It clearly differentiates this from sending or drafting tools.
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 phrase 'without sending anything' establishes clear context for a dry-run/preview use case, and 'explicit completed jobs' tells the agent which inputs are relevant. It does not name an alternative tool for actually sending, so exclusion guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tool families are organized by resource and action (get/search/preview/reports), so most tools have a distinct purpose. A few near-overlaps exist—customer-service-requests vs search-service-requests and the many campaign preview/search tools—but descriptions generally clarify boundaries.
The set consistently uses kebab-case with recognizable prefixes like get-, search-, preview-, and reports-, making intent predictable. A few noun-phrase tools (complaint-recall-risk, customer-service-requests, operations-parts, jobs-today) break the verb-first pattern, but they remain readable and grouped.
45 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold and creates a large surface for agents to navigate, even though the domain is broad. Many tools are narrow read-only variations (e.g., five preview-campaign tools, three reports-* tools), which inflates the count without adding fundamentally new capabilities.
As a read-only/insights server, the surface covers customers, jobs, quotes, invoices, leads, locations, service requests, reviews, campaigns, operations, and reporting with both search and detail access. Minor gaps exist—no get-* for campaign types or social drafts—but these align with the intentionally bounded, safe-read model.