yelp_business_review_highlights

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the backend ('Yelp's real Android app backend') and credential-free operation ('no login, no API key, no cookie required'), which addresses common auth concerns. It stops short of covering rate limits or failure modes, but it goes beyond minimal expectations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no filler. Every phrase adds value: what it fetches, the output format, the backend, and authentication requirements.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the return value (thematic snippets with supporting quotes), the access method (Android backend), and the lack of credentials. This covers the essentials, though it omits details about error cases or data volume.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes `id` as 'Yelp business alias or encoded id.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Get Yelp business review highlights.' It then defines what highlights are ('thematic review snippets (extracted talking points with a supporting quote)'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like yelp_business_reviews (likely full reviews) or yelp_business_reviews_search.

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?

Provides clear context on what the tool returns (thematic snippets with quotes), which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5 but offers more guidance than a bare statement.

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