Customer reviews

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

Annotations already mark the operation safe, but the description adds a crucial behavioral disclosure: total and averageRating describe the returned sample, not the overall business, and the authoritative values live in googleProfile. This prevents a likely mis-citation, which is exactly the kind of beyond-schema transparency needed.

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 sentences with no filler: the purpose comes first, followed by source composition and filtering, then the critical citation caveat. The structure front-loads the listing behavior and defers the warning where it still lands naturally.

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 read-only, idempotent list tool with a detailed schema and output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: source aggregation, available filters, and the semantic meaning of result counts and ratings. No critical missing context remains.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions and constraints, so the description is not required to repeat details. It does add a high-level mention of minimum-star filtering, but no new semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List customer reviews and testimonials for Kolmo Construction,' and immediately clarifies it combines two source types, Google reviews and on-site testimonials. This makes the tool's scope and aggregation behavior clear and differentiates it from project-specific or single-source siblings.

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 establishes clear context: use this tool to list and filter customer reviews, with source and minimum-star filtering implied. It does not explicitly state when to prefer get_project_testimonials or another alternative, but the citation caveat tells the agent when to rely on the googleProfile fields.

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