google_map_place_reviews

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals the typical 8 most relevant reviews, the empty text for photo-only reviews, the first-page limit, and the 1 request per second rate limit, all of which go beyond the 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 four sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each subsequent sentence adds useful detail—returned fields, an edge case, scope limitation, and rate limit—without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description enumerates the expected review fields and key edge cases (photo-only reviews, first-page scope, rate limit). This is sufficiently complete for a straightforward read-only list tool.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (place_id and limit). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond reiterating the place_id's role, so it meets the baseline but does not significantly improve parameter understanding.

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 Google Maps reviews for a specified place_id, enumerates the fields (rating, text, reviewer, timestamp, photos), and distinguishes itself by noting it returns only the first page of reviews, not the full archive. This separates it from sibling tools like google_map_place and google_map_place_photos.

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?

It provides a clear scope boundary (first page of reviews, not full archive) and a rate limit, which implies when it is appropriate to use. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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