google_maps_contributor_reviews: GET /

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

Describes return fields (rating, text, date, place details, photos, owner responses) and pagination mechanism. Without annotations, it appropriately discloses read behavior and output structure.

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 focused sentences: first defines action and key parameters, second lists data fields and use cases. No redundancy, 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?

Covers all parameters, pagination, return fields, and use cases. Lacks details on default values or error handling, but sufficient for a data retrieval tool with no output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context for hl/gl as targeting and nextPageToken for pagination, but does not substantially deepen understanding beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states it lists reviews by a specific contributor, using contributorId, with pagination. Differentiates from sibling tools like getMapReviews by specifying the contributor focus.

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?

Lists specific use cases (reputation checks, fake/bot detection, etc.) but does not explicitly advise when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings.

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