Gbp.Reviews.List

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this hits a legacy v4 host and is gated by allowlist approval — non-obvious eligibility and auth context — but says nothing about pagination, result caps, ordering, or whether it is a pure read.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, with the scoping constraint and the eligibility caveat front-loaded where the agent will read them before constructing the call.

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?

The tool is a single-parameter list call, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. The description covers purpose, host, and eligibility — enough for an agent to attempt the call correctly, with the location_name format the main remaining gap.

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 0% and the description only echoes 'for a location'. Given the legacy v4 host note, the format of location_name (bare location ID vs a resource name) is exactly the ambiguity that needed resolving, and it is left undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('List reviews') scoped to a location, which cleanly separates it from the write-side sibling gbp.review.reply and from gbp.locations.list. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 parenthetical adds a real precondition ('requires Google allowlist approval'), which tells the agent when the call will fail. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus gbp.review.reply or how to obtain the allowlist approval, so usage is implied rather than directed.

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