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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: the default result set includes unapproved reviews, which is a non-obvious filtering behavior an agent must know to interpret results correctly.

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 sentences, no filler. The default-behavior fact is front-loaded and the alternative-mode hint follows, which is the right order for an agent scanning the definition.

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 values need not be explained. The description covers the key ambiguity (approved vs unapproved) for a 2-parameter tool, though it stays silent on the apartment_id account-ownership constraint that the schema handles instead.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema's terse 'Only published (moderator-approved) reviews' by framing the flag against the published-on-booking-page semantics and stating the default, which is the kind of nuance the schema does not convey.

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 identifies the resource (guest reviews) and clearly describes the scope of what is returned, including the default inclusion of unapproved reviews. It does not restate the verb, but combined with the name list_reviews the agent can tell what it does and how it differs from other list_* siblings.

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?

It gives concrete guidance for when to set approved_only: use it to match what is actually published on the booking page. It does not state prerequisites (e.g. that apartment_id must belong to this account) or exclusions, but the selecting condition is explicit.

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