google_maps_reviews: GET /

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination (via nextPageToken), sorting, and filter capabilities, and lists returned fields. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and is well-structured. Each sentence adds information, though it could be slightly more concise; it remains effective without significant 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers the return fields (author, rating, text, etc.) and pagination mechanism. It provides enough detail for an agent to understand what the tool returns and how to use it, though it could better explain the nextPageToken usage.

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?

All 6 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explicitly listing sort options (qualityScore, newestFirst, etc.), explaining the filter via topicId, and specifying that dataId or placeId are used. This adds value for an agent.

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 'Get Map Reviews' and specifies that it fetches Google Maps reviews by dataId or placeId with sorting, filtering, and language options. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getPlaceDetails or getMapPhotos by focusing solely on reviews.

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 mentions use cases (reputation management, sentiment mining, etc.) but does not explicitly compare to alternate tools or state when not to use this tool. No guidance on when to prefer this over other review-related or map data tools.

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