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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable, non-obvious context: the returned total and averageRating are sample statistics, not the authoritative Google Business Profile values, and agents should cite the googleProfile field instead. This meaningfully prevents misuse.

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 earning its place: one anchors the tool's purpose, one notes the filter capability, and one delivers a critical citation caveat. The most important usage warning is clearly flagged with 'IMPORTANT'.

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 the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description provides the essential extra context: data source combination, filtering, and the citation-critical caveat. The only notable gap is not identifying the relationship to the sibling get_project_testimonials 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents limit, offset, source, and minRating. The description mentions filtering by minimum star rating but does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List'), resource (customer reviews and testimonials for Kolmo Construction), and key behavior (combines Google reviews and on-site testimonials, filter by star rating). It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_project_testimonials.

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 implies usage when the agent needs aggregated customer reviews for Kolmo Construction, and the citation note gives guidance on how to use the returned data. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_project_testimonials.

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