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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: 'newest first' ordering, that the average is 'visible', that only appointment holders can review and only once per appointment. Return format is described even without an output schema.

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?

The core purpose and ordering are front-loaded, and the parenthetical field list efficiently enumerates what a review contains. Dense but every clause carries information; the final routing sentence 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 description carries the full burden of describing returns, and it does: stars, text, service, business reply, hidden flag, and visible average. It also covers ordering and eligibility rules. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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 coverage is 100% and there is only one optional parameter (workspaceId), so the schema carries the parameter documentation. The description adds nothing about workspaceId beyond the default already stated in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reviews left by customers after an appointment') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the similarly-named sibling list_reviews, which it identifies as Google/social reviews. An agent can tell these apart 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?

Names the alternative explicitly ('not Google or social reviews (those are list_reviews)'), giving a clear routing condition. It does not state an explicit 'use this when' clause, but the scope constraint makes the intended context unambiguous.

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