business_reviews_v2

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states basic functionality. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, response format, or whether it's read-only/destructive. The mention of 'pagination support' is useful but insufficient for a tool with 9 parameters and no 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 description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes an important feature (pagination support). Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on response format, error conditions, usage constraints, and how parameters like 'translate_reviews' or 'fields' affect behavior. For a data retrieval tool with rich filtering options, more contextual guidance is needed.

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 fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'business_id' is key and mentioning pagination (related to 'cursor'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter interactions or semantics.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'business reviews', specifying the primary identifier 'by Business Id' and mentioning 'pagination support'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'business_review_details' (single review) and 'business_reviews' (likely older version), but doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives like 'search' for broader queries.

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 implies usage for retrieving reviews for a specific business, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search' or 'business_review_details'. It mentions pagination support, which hints at use for large datasets, but lacks clear when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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