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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered, but the description goes further by stating the consequences ('read only', no reply/report capability) and the auth prerequisite ('Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app'). That is genuine added 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?

The first two sentences are near-duplicates ('Customer reviews... with rating, text and date' vs 'Returns customer reviews... with the rating, text and date'), wasting space before the genuinely useful filtering and read-only notes. Front-loading is fine but the redundancy costs it.

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 read-only/open-world annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description appropriately describes returned fields, filtering, read-only status, and the API-key requirement. Only the redundant phrasing and lack of any pagination/volume hint keep it from a 5.

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%, and the schema already documents 'since' and 'activity_id' fully. The description's 'Filter by activity or by start date' mirrors those two parameters but adds no format or edge-case detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 reviews' / 'Returns customer reviews of your activities') and enumerates the returned fields (rating, text, date). It also distinguishes itself by noting what no sibling tool does (answer or report reviews), though the first two sentences restate the same idea almost verbatim, weakening the differentiation slightly.

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?

Gives clear filtering guidance ('Filter by activity or by start date') and explicitly states the negative case ('Cotlet has no tool to answer or report them'), which tells the agent not to look for a reply/report path. No relevant alternative sibling exists to name, so this is near-complete.

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