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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by noting results are 'normalized' and 'paginated', which indicates output format and pagination behavior beyond 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the key qualifiers (normalized, paginated) and scoping (one listing, one platform). No wasted words.

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?

This tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, but the description only hints at the output ('reviews') and scope. It does not explain the expected response structure, parameter relationships, or edge cases, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 13% (only 'language' has a description). The description mentions 'one listing' and 'one platform' but does not clarify which parameters identify the listing (e.g., listingId vs. url) or explain other parameters like sort, limit, cursor, or minRating. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 this tool retrieves reviews for a single listing on a single platform. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_listing or compare_prices by specifying 'reviews' and the scope constraints.

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: use when you need reviews for one listing on one platform. However, no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other tools, or what the alternatives are, beyond the inferred scope.

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