zernio_list_reviews

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not disclose behaviors like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no reviews are found. Only mentions return fields, which is minimal for a tool with multiple filters.

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: first sentence clearly states purpose and source; second sentence lists returned fields and highlights the review ID's use case. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, front-loaded.

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?

No output schema, so description explains return values adequately. Mentions review ID for replying, providing integration context. Does not cover pagination or error cases, but given parameter descriptions cover defaults and filters, it is mostly complete.

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% (all 6 parameters described). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions output fields. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states verb (list), resource (customer reviews), source (connected accounts like Google Business Profile), and explicitly lists returned fields (reviewer name, rating, review text, date, review ID) with the ID's purpose. Distinguishes from sibling tools like zernio_get_gmb_reviews by indicating multi-platform support.

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?

Description implies usage for listing reviews from connected accounts but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., zernio_get_gmb_reviews for platform-specific details) or when not to use. Lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or context.

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