qrtap_list_reviews

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden; it usefully discloses the publish workflow ('nothing a guest writes appears publicly until someone publishes it') and the default status bucket, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or result volume. Genuine added context, but not a complete behavioral picture.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose then the default-behavior insight then the alternates. Every sentence adds information; nothing is redundant with the schema or title.

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?

For a single-optional-enum list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is listed, the default, and the meaning of alternates. Return shape and paging remain unspecified, which is the only meaningful gap.

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% with an enum and per-value description, so baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by translating 'pending' into the moderation-queue concept and pairing 'published'/'hidden' with the intent 'review earlier decisions', adding workflow meaning beyond the schema's short gloss.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List guest reviews') plus scope ('left on the organization's public pages'), and frames the tool's question ('are there new reviews?') so an agent can distinguish this read operation from sibling moderation/mutation tools like qrtap_moderate_review.

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?

Explicitly explains that the default 'pending' is the moderation queue for finding new reviews, and that 'published'/'hidden' are for reviewing earlier decisions — clear when-to-use guidance for each value. It stops short of naming qrtap_moderate_review as the alternative when action (not listing) is needed.

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