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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the result is 'a sample' rather than a complete set, which is a genuine behavioral trait beyond the annotations. However, it says nothing about sample size, ordering, pagination, or freshness, so it only partially fulfils the reduced burden.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and lists the payload fields without filler. It is slightly terse, lacking a leading verb, but every word 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description is adequate for a simple read tool but omits the relationship to foodpanda_search (where the required code comes from) and any notion of how many or which reviews are returned.

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%: the code parameter explicitly references a search response's code field and the market parameter lists its allowed values and default. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 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 names a specific resource (a foodpanda restaurant's customer reviews) and enumerates the returned fields (author, date, review text, rating), which is more than a tautology. It does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like foodpanda_restaurant or foodpanda_restaurant_menu, so it falls short of a 5, but an agent can tell it returns reviews rather than restaurant metadata or menus.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as foodpanda_restaurant (to get restaurant info first) or foodpanda_search (to obtain the code). The only implicit signal is the word 'sample', and no exclusions or preconditions are stated.

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