StarReview

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses caching (30 days) and implies a read-only 'free check', but does not specify rate limits, error handling, or what happens if placeId is invalid. More behavioral details would be beneficial.

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?

Three sentences, each purposeful: purpose, prerequisite, and caching behavior. No redundant words, front-loaded with the most critical information.

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?

Missing output schema, so description should clarify return values (e.g., response rate percentage, competitor benchmarks). Caching and prerequisite are covered, but the output format is left ambiguous.

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%, but the description adds crucial usage context: placeId must come from a recent search_business call and results are cached. This goes beyond schema descriptions, which only describe types and constraints.

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 the verb 'check' and the resource 'response rate of recent Google reviews' against competitors. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_business and get_service_info by specifying a unique action.

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 explicit prerequisite (placeId must come from recent search_business call) and caching behavior (do not repeat for 30 days). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or name alternatives for similar tasks, though no direct alternative exists among siblings.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool requires authentication, has side effects, or returns static vs. dynamic data. The mention of 'how to get an authenticated token' hints at authentication context but does not clarify the tool's own behavior.

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 sentence listing four key topics, which is concise and easy to scan. However, it lacks structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) that could improve clarity for an agent.

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 tool with no input parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main topics an agent would need to know. However, it could be more explicit about what the tool returns and how the information is structured, leaving some ambiguity for an agent to infer.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the schema provides no meaning. The description compensates by explaining what information the tool provides (service description, pricing, sign-up, token acquisition), adding value beyond the empty 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 lists topics ('what StarReview does, pricing...') but does not state an explicit action verb like 'returns' or 'provides'. The purpose is implied rather than clearly stated, making it somewhat vague for an agent to understand exactly 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_response_rate' or 'search_business'. No when/when-not or context for selection is provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return of up to 5 candidates and the need to choose one, but does not mention error states, rate limits, or behavior on no results.

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 sentence plus a directive for the next step, with no wasted words. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions the key output (up to 5 candidates with placeId) and integrates with siblings. It could elaborate on candidate structure but is sufficient for a simple search tool.

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%, and the description adds an example for 'query' but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 the tool's purpose: finding a business on Google Maps by name, optionally with city. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the output (candidates) and linking to the next tool.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool (to find a business by name) and provides a next-step hint (feed placeId to check_response_rate). It does not specify exclusions, but the context is clear enough.

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