business_reviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pagination support' but doesn't explain how pagination works (e.g., using limit/offset), rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the response looks like. For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Get business reviews by Business Id') and includes a key feature ('with pagination support'). There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format, error cases, or usage context relative to siblings. While concise, it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without relying heavily on the schema alone.

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%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify parameter interactions or provide usage examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get business reviews by Business Id with pagination support.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('business reviews'), and key constraint ('by Business Id'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'business_review_details' or 'business_reviews_v2', which is a minor gap.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'business_review_details' and 'business_reviews_v2' available, there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be preferred, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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