Get a review

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: the return shape matches list_reviews, starRating is an enum ONE..FIVE, reviewReply is conditional, and the API legacy constraint. This greatly enriches what an agent knows about the tool's behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then delivering two high-value clarifications (return shape and API version). No wasted words.

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?

For a simple getter, the description covers return shape via the list_reviews reference, enumerates the starRating values, specifies when reviewReply is present, and warns about the API version. With no output schema, this is sufficient context, and sibling tools (list_reviews, reply_to_review) make the ecosystem clear.

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?

Input schema fully documents all three parameters (100% coverage), including formats and source of reviewId. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states it returns one review by id, with a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from list_reviews by noting the same shape as a list_reviews entry, making its scoped purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides important context: reviews live only on the legacy v4 API and were never migrated to v1, which guides when this tool should be used. It implicitly distinguishes from list_reviews (single vs. many) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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