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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: sort order ('newest first'), the returned fields, the constraint that reviews cannot be removed, and the Cotlet API key/auth requirement.

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?

Front-loaded and readable, but sentence two nearly restates sentence one ('Client reviews... with rating, text and whether you replied' vs 'Returns the reviews... with rating, text and whether you replied'), which is wasted space in a short description.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the returned fields and sort order. Auth needs are noted. It is nearly complete for a simple read-only list tool, with only a slightly redundant structure holding it back.

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 100%, so the schema already documents since, location_id and unanswered_only. The description only paraphrases unanswered_only ('skip reviews you already answered') and adds nothing about since or location_id. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 ('Returns the reviews posted on your Vagaro listing page') plus returned fields (rating, text, replied status). It implicitly separates itself from write/reply siblings by stating 'you cannot remove a customer review... this tool only reads them', though it never names vagaro_reply_to_review explicitly.

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?

Provides some usage guidance ('Use unanswered_only to skip reviews you already answered') but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use framing or named alternatives for handling replies (e.g., reply_to_review). Usage is largely implied by the read-only note.

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