list_tutor_reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description itself adds no behavioral context such as pagination behavior, default ordering, whether anonymization affects output, or any other runtime characteristics 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 extremely short, but it is also redundant with the tool name and title. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative; the single phrase does not earn its place because it provides no new information.

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 has four parameters and sits among dozens of siblings, the description is too minimal to help an agent understand what tutor reviews are, when to call this tool, or how it relates to similar tools. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the lack of context around the tool's purpose and typical use.

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%, and each parameter has a meaningful description in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema carries the full burden, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 is 'List Tutor Reviews', which exactly restates the tool name and annotation title. It communicates a verb and resource, but adds no detail beyond the name, so it reads as a tautology rather than a real explanation of what the tool does.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many similar list_* tools such as list_session_feedback, list_tutors, and list_students, but the description does not distinguish tutor reviews from those or mention any use cases.

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