gbp_list_reviews

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and only the verb 'Lists' implies a non-destructive read. It does not disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, which review fields are returned, or authorization prerequisites, all of which matter for a 4-param list call.

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?

A single six-word sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately compact, though its brevity reflects under-specification more than deliberate pruning of redundant detail.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the one-liner is insufficient: an agent cannot tell what review fields are returned, the default sort order, how to paginate past 50 reviews, or when to prefer this over gbp_list_posts. The orderBy enum hints at sorting, but the description never connects its behavior to the parameters.

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 only 25% (just 'parent' is documented), so the description needed to compensate for orderBy, pageSize, and pageToken, but it adds nothing. It only restates that the target is a location, which the schema already conveys for parent.

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 ('Lists'), a distinct resource ('reviews'), and a scope ('a GBP location'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like gbp_list_posts and gbp_reply_review. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though sibling differentiation relies on the resource noun alone rather than explicit contrast.

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 gbp_list_posts, gbp_get_insights, or other read tools for the same location. No preconditions (e.g., location ownership, verified business), exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned anywhere in the description.

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