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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral traits: returns all reviews, sorted by recency, and the non-mutating intent implied by 'Return' and the write-avoidance usage hint. It lacks explicit safety declarations, but for a read-only list operation, the given details are adequate.

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: the first delivers the primary function and sorting behavior, the second a concise usage tip. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no filler.

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 only 2 parameters (1 required) and an output schema present, this description is complete. It states what the tool does, when to use it, and the sort order. The schema covers parameter details and output format, so no further description is needed.

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%, with both 'target' and 'include_consolidated' already well documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides—it merely reiterates the concept of a target. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action: 'Return all reviews attached to a target, sorted by recency.' It specifies the resource (reviews), the scope (attached to a target), and sorting behavior, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like review_note that create or modify reviews.

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 instructs 'Use before writing a new review to avoid duplication,' providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not name alternative tools or provide exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to choose this over write-oriented siblings.

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