yelp_reviews: GET /

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It thoroughly describes pagination mechanics, nextPageToken semantics, the conflict between query and rating filters, notRecommended limitations, response echo fields, and the contents of each review and the business totals. This is exceptionally transparent for an unannotated tool.

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 long but justifiably so for a 10-parameter tool with subtle pagination and filter interactions. It is front-loaded with a clear summary, then logically organized into pagination, response contents, and use cases. Every sentence contributes useful information without fluff.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must explain both invocation and expected returns. It covers pagination fields, review contents, author profile fields, photos/videos/reactions, tags, owner replies, and rating/language totals. This is a complete and self-sufficient description for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 meaningful cross-parameter guidance beyond the schema: step start by num, resend nextPageToken while keeping filters unchanged, do not combine start with nextPageToken, and paginate until hasNextPage is false. It also clarifies default behavior for num with and without notRecommended, which adds value beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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 opens with the specific resource 'Yelp Place Reviews' and a clear verb, then states it fetches the review feed of a single Yelp business by Yelp ID with sorting, filtering, and pagination. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like place details and search results, even without naming them.

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 concrete use cases: monitoring sentiment, mining complaints, tracking owner responses, and building rating-distribution or review-velocity datasets. It also explains when filters behave unexpectedly, such as Yelp ignoring the rating filter when a query is set. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool compared to the sibling search or details tools.

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