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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds a pagination trait ("Cursor-paginated"), but the cursor mechanics are already documented in the schema, and there is no mention of auth requirements, default sorting, or page limits. It adds marginal value beyond the annotations.

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 compact sentences with zero filler: purpose and scope first, returned fields next, pagination and the upstream endpoint last. Every clause earns its place.

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 enumerated field list is doing real work to describe what comes back, and pagination is flagged. For an 8-parameter, zero-required list tool it is nearly complete, though defaults, sorting behavior, and whether the two scope filters are mutually exclusive remain unstated.

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 63%, so roughly a third of the parameters (sort, source, sort_direction) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description's "property or a lead" phrasing maps to property_uid/lead_uid, which is a small addition, but it does not explain the sort enums or source filter. 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?

States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("guest reviews") plus the scoping axis ("for a property or a lead"), and enumerates the returned fields. No sibling tool in the list covers reviews, so an agent can select this unambiguously without opening the 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?

Implies usage through "for a property or a lead," hinting at the property_uid/lead_uid filters, but never states when to use this over an alternative call or whether both filters can be combined. No explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are given.

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