get_place_reviews

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which cover safety. The description adds value by specifying the different input formats (name, ID, URL) and the exact data returned (star ratings, category strengths, photos), which is not in the annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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 short paragraphs. It front-loads the core action and includes concrete examples without unnecessary filler. All sentences contribute to understanding input and output, so it's efficient 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?

An output schema exists, so return format is covered. The description addresses input variability (name, ID, URL) and the data fetched. Though it doesn't explicitly mention pagination or provider selection, those are in the schema. For a read-only retrieval tool, this is sufficiently complete.

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 schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description largely repeats the parameter descriptions (e.g., places and URLs) without adding new semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. No additional parameter-specific guidance.

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 explicitly states the tool fetches verified user reviews, star ratings, category strengths, and reviewer photos from dedicated review platforms. It names the verb ('Fetch') and the resource ('reviews'), and mentions specific platforms (Kakao Maps, Google Reviews, Tabelog) that distinguish it from other review tools like get_hotel_reviews.

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 clear context on what the tool does (fetches from external review platforms) and how to provide input, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_hotel_reviews or when to prefer one over the other. It implies its broader scope by accepting hotel/place names, but no explicit exclusion.

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