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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful context: a mandatory preview-then-confirm flow, the fact that only supplied fields change (partial update), and that retirer_lien cuts off all requests. It also cites Google's policy constraints (no intermediate rating, no filtering, no incentive), which explain why certain behaviors are absent. Some of this repeats what the confirmer parameter description already says, keeping it below 5.

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 read/write distinction and the preview-confirm rule are front-loaded and the sentences are dense with information. The semicolon-chained style is slightly heavy but nearly every clause carries a distinct fact. Minor redundancy with the confirmer schema text.

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 9-parameter, zero-required, destructive configuration tool with no output schema, the description covers the read path, the write path, the confirmation protocol, and the partial-update semantics. What it does not describe is the shape of the 30-day statistics it returns, though that is arguably minor and inferable from the field names given.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains lien, moment, passages, délai, texte, and the removal flags in detail. The description only restates a subset (lien, demande active, moment, délai, texte) without adding syntax or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names the resource (Google reviews for the business) and two clear capabilities: showing 30-day figures and configuring the review request. It cross-references regler_automatismes for the channel setting, which helps separate the two tools. It falls short of 5 because the opening is a bare noun phrase rather than a verb-first statement of what the tool does.

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?

It gives an explicit operating rule: with no changes it is read-only; with changes, confirmer=false returns a before/after preview and confirmer=true persists. That tells the agent exactly how to sequence calls. It does not state when to prefer a sibling tool (e.g. regler_automatismes for the channel itself) beyond a passing reference.

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