get_reviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It adds that results include sentiment and rating distribution, which is helpful, but lacks details on pagination, default behavior, authentication needs, or whether reviews are raw or aggregated. Some transparency but gaps remain.

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 two sentences with no wasted words, front-loaded with the primary purpose. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should hint at return structure. It mentions sentiment and rating distribution, which is helpful. Considering the 20 sibling tools, it adequately distinguishes itself. It could be more complete about what exactly is returned (raw vs. aggregated).

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context about competitor vs own reviews and mentions sentiment/rating distribution not in schema, but does not enhance understanding of sort, limit, or competitor_id usage beyond schema.

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 reviews for the user's business or a competitor, with sentiment analysis and rating distribution. The verb 'get' and resource 'reviews' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_competitor_detail or list_competitors.

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 implies usage for obtaining reviews but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_competitor_detail for detailed competitor info or list_competitors for competitor listing. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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