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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context: the dependency on the cid field, the kind of data returned, and the batch limit. Pagination behavior is not mentioned, but the annotations lower the burden for safety-related transparency.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: what the tool does, how the identifier is obtained, and the call limit.

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 read-only tool with no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, the description covers the main purpose and required parameter well. However, it omits the meaning and usage of 'pagina_token', which is important for pagination, and does not clarify the optional 'pais' and 'idioma' parameters. This is a noticeable gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the required 'cids' parameter by explaining its source (cid from sibling tools) and the 100-item limit. However, it does not explain 'pais', 'idioma', or 'pagina_token', leaving some parameter semantics to inference.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Lê as avaliações de um estabelecimento no Google', and lists the data returned (nota, data, texto). It also distinguishes this tool from sibling search tools by explaining that it consumes the 'cid' produced by busca_google_lugares or busca_google_mapas.

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 explicit workflow context: find the place via the sibling tools and then read its reviews using the returned cid. It also states a practical limit of 100 establishments per call. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use the tool, but the guidance is clear enough.

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