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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive behavior beyond that: newest-first ordering, inlined published reply text, Google's moderation states (approved/pending/rejected), and the specific consequence that a rejected reply makes has_reply false with reply_policy_violation explaining why. It omits pagination behavior and any rate/volume caveats.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct information: the core listing behavior first, then filters, then reply-state semantics. No filler or repetition of the name/title, and the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded.

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, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by naming the key response fields (inlined reply text, reply_state, has_reply, reply_policy_violation). Combined with the filter list and the moderation-state explanation, an agent has enough to call this correctly and interpret results.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate, and it does for five of seven parameters: location_id (via 'location'), rating_min/rating_max (via 'star-rating range'), unanswered_only (via 'replied/unreplied'), and since_days (via 'trailing day window'). It does not clarify limit/offset paging or the default/max page size, which are undocumented in the schema as well.

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 specific verb and resource ('List Google reviews for the org'), plus ordering ('newest first') and the inlined reply text. This differentiates it from siblings like get_review_stats (aggregates) and list_locations, letting an agent identify it without opening the schema.

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?

Enumerates the available filters (location, star-rating range, replied/unreplied, trailing day window) and tells the agent what to do when a reply is rejected ('write a new reply'), pointing implicitly at the reply tools. It gives clear usage context but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_review_stats or other alternatives.

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