get_new_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 behavioral burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose any side effects, pagination, rate limits, or how 'first observed' is determined. The behavior is only minimally implied; significant 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 a single short sentence, which is efficient, but it is under-specified. It is not front-loaded with the most critical details; it merely states the purpose without elaboration. While concise, it sacrifices clarity, making it only average in this dimension.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and only 2 parameters at 0% coverage, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the return format, how 'first observed' is defined, or any limitations. An agent cannot fully understand what to expect when invoking this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the parameters at all. The schema gives 'days' and 'limit' with defaults, but the description adds no meaning about what they represent (e.g., days specifies the period length, limit caps results). With zero coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get reviews' with a temporal qualifier 'first observed during a period.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_reviews or get_teacher_reviews by emphasizing newness. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it misses the full differentiation that a 5 would require.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not mention that it is for retrieving only newly observed reviews, nor does it contrast with search_reviews or get_teacher_reviews. No context or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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