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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: a hard cap of 100 results per call, the Alpha stability warning, and the underlying endpoint. It does not cover error behavior or whether the 100 cap implies truncation with no pagination, leaving a small gap.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by cap, stability, and endpoint metadata. Every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (scores, content, reviewer, reply) and discloses the result cap and Alpha status. For a simple two-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description restates the date filter and property scoping but adds no format, default, or edge-case detail beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (Booking.com guest reviews) scoped to one property and a date filter. The source platform distinguishes it from the sibling beds24_list_airbnb_reviews without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'one property' and 'on or after a date' scoping, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing language referencing the Airbnb review sibling as an alternative.

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