get_reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'from all channels' scope, useful context beyond annotations, but doesn't disclose pagination, response format, or other behavioral details, though the bar is lower given the annotations.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only tool with two optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient to convey its purpose. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from specifying that it returns a list of reviews and potentially key fields, though the task is straightforward.

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% for both parameters (limit, listingId), so the schema fully documents their meaning. The description doesn't add parameter-specific detail, thus the baseline 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Fetch' with a clear resource 'guest reviews' and scope 'from all channels', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like respond_to_review and get_guests. It precisely conveys the tool's function.

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 when one needs to fetch reviews, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as respond_to_review. No exclusions or alternate tool references are mentioned.

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