google_maps_contributor_reviews: GET /

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'Lists all' reviews and returns a comprehensive set of fields per review, indicating a read-only behavior (GET) without side effects. It does not hide the requirement for contributorId or the pagination mechanism. While it doesn't state 'read-only' explicitly, the description's phrasing and the GET method imply it, and no behavioral surprises are hidden.

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 two sentences plus a use-case list, with no fluff. It front-loads the core action ('Lists all...') immediately, then provides targeting details and return fields, and ends with concrete use cases. Every sentence adds information relevant to invocation; there is no repetition or filler.

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's moderate complexity (5 params), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It states what the tool returns (rating, text, date, place details, photos, owner responses), mentions targeting and pagination, and provides clear application scenarios. An agent has sufficient context to call this tool correctly and interpret the response.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking 'language/country targeting' to the hl and gl parameters, and 'nextPageToken pagination' to the nextPageToken parameter, and clarifies the primary 'by contributorId' scope. It enriches the schema without being redundant, so a 4 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Lists') and a specific resource ('all Google Maps reviews authored by a specific Local Guide / contributor by contributorId'). It also lists the returned fields (rating, text, date, place name, etc.), making the tool's function unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like getMapReviews by emphasizing the contributor-scoped nature, which is not evident in other tool names.

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 gives explicit use cases ('reviewer reputation checks, detecting fake/bot review patterns, local-guide activity analysis, and building review-author profiles for trust scoring'), which clearly indicate when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the use cases are specific enough to guide an agent. This is better than the MID example but not as strong as naming a sibling.

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