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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds valuable behavior beyond the annotations: unpublished or unavailable review records return found:false, and the response includes full Markdown with citations. This helps the agent anticipate absence handling without assuming an error.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and return contents; the second addresses the not-found case. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what data it returns, how the provider parameter should be interpreted, and the behavior when no published review is available.

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?

The schema provides only the field name and length constraints, with no description, so the description carries the semantic load. It explicitly states that the single 'provider' parameter accepts a name, alias, or slug, which is essential for correct invocation and is genuinely additive to the schema.

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 uses specific verbs ('Resolve', 'retrieve') and a specific resource ('provider reviews'), and enumerates exactly what is returned: review summary, Review Score contributors, original source metrics, qualifications, and full Markdown with citations. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_provider_reviews, which implies a lookup rather than a fuzzy search.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use it: when you have a provider name, alias, or slug and need published review details. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use them, but the 'resolve' language and the provider input make the intended invocation scenario clear.

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