List reviews

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the exact response shape (reviews[] with name, reviewer, starRating, etc.), that starRating is an enum not a number, a pageSize cap of 50, and that reviews exist only on the legacy v4 API. This goes beyond structured 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?

Three sentences deliver core behavior, response contract, and a critical API-version caveat. Every clause is information-dense without redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by fully describing the return shape, averageRating, totalReviewCount, and pagination cap. It also warns about the legacy v4 API. It doesn't cover error conditions or pageToken mechanics beyond schema, but that's acceptable for a read-only list operation.

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?

All 5 parameters have full schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific value beyond the schema—the pageSize cap and default ordering are already in the schema descriptions.

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 states 'Lists reviews of a location' which is a specific verb-plus-resource, and adds 'newest-updated first by default' to clarify ordering. It clearly distinguishes from sibling get_review by focusing on plural reviews and includes the notable legacy v4 API context.

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 gives clear context: what it lists, default sort, pageSize cap, and the legacy v4 API caveat. However, it does not explicitly compare with get_review or state when not to use it, so it falls short of explicit alternative guidance.

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