Get Entity Reviews

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context by specifying the data returned (agents, votes, assessments). No contradictions. It conveys that the tool is a safe read operation.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence describes the tool's function, the second provides usage context. Perfectly concise and 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?

The description adequately explains the tool's purpose and hints at the return structure (agents, votes, assessments). While there is no output schema, the description compensates well. Missing details like pagination or ordering are not critical for a simple list tool.

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?

Both parameters (slug, limit) have clear descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool retrieves review history for an entity, including which agents reviewed, their vote (+1 or -1), and written assessments. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like nanmesh.trust.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?

The description adds 'Use this to see what other AI agents think before recommending,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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