angi_get_reviews

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds some useful context by listing the returned fields and noting that the pro's response is included only 'where one exists', but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, empty-result handling, or whether the profileUrl must come from a prior search.

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?

Two tight sentences. The first front-loads the verb, resource, and output fields; the second gives a concrete filtering use case. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned review fields and gives a filtering example. It is complete enough for an agent to select the tool and understand what it will get back, though it leaves minor gaps around defaults, ordering, and pagination.

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 all five parameters are already documented. The description adds only a general 'filter by rating' tip, while the schema itself provides richer direction (e.g., 'use maxRating: 3 to surface complaints'). Therefore the description adds little beyond the 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 starts with a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('the reviews on an Angi pro's profile page'), then enumerates the exact fields returned. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like angi_list_my_reviews by focusing on a public pro profile rather than the caller's own 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 establishes clear context: use this when you want reviews from a specific pro's profile page. It also gives a practical usage tip ('Filter by rating to isolate complaints or praise'). It does not explicitly name excluded alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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