Google Maps Contributor Reviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic read operation and scope; there is no mention of pagination, ordering, error cases, or whether contributorId can be a profile link rather than an ID. It is a minimal functional statement with no extra behavioral context.

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 a single clear sentence that front-loads the action and object. There is no redundant phrasing, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 tool is simple: one required parameter, no enums, no nested objects, and an output schema is available. The concise scope statement is largely sufficient for invoking the tool correctly. It lacks usage-alternative guidance and deeper behavioral caveats, but those are not critical given the schema and low complexity.

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 three parameters including defaults for hl and num. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('retrieve'), names the resource ('reviews written by a specific reviewer'), and defines the scope ('across all places they rated'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_maps_reviews, which presumably returns reviews for a specific place.

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 the use case: use this tool when you need a reviewer's reviews across multiple places. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like google_maps_reviews, nor does it mention any exclusions or trade-offs.

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