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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return fields and pagination but does not mention rate limits, errors, or authentication. It implies read-only via the GET method in the title but not explicitly in the description.

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 concise, with a clear verb, resource, and use-case sentence. It avoids fluff and is well-structured.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description lists the return fields (rating, text, date, place name, place address, placeId, photos, owner responses) and mentions pagination. It does not cover error handling or limitations, but for a simple GET endpoint it is reasonably complete.

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?

All five parameters are described in the schema, and the description adds extra details such as the valid range for 'num' (10-200) and the purpose of 'nextPageToken'. This goes beyond simply restating 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 clearly states the tool's function: listing Google Maps reviews authored by a specific contributor. It uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('reviews authored by a specific Local Guide / contributor'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool for place reviews (hasdata_google_maps_reviews_getMapReviews).

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 description provides explicit use cases ('Use for reviewer reputation checks, detecting fake/bot review patterns, local-guide activity analysis, and building review-author profiles for trust scoring'). It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools, but the contributor focus makes the intended scenario clear.

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