angi_get_reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by detailing exactly what data is returned (rating, body text, job cost, date, categories, etc.) and notes the conditional inclusion of the pro's public response 'where one exists.' This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word adds value. It efficiently covers both what is returned and how to filter, with no fluff.

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 read-only tool with strong annotations and a well-described schema, the description is quite complete. It lists the return fields and filtering capability but does not mention pagination, ordering, or default limit behavior. Still, it provides enough for an agent to confidently invoke the 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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description augments this by explaining the intent of rating filters ('use maxRating: 3 to surface complaints' appears in schema, but the description's 'isolate complaints or praise' reinforces the use case). This adds meaning beyond the bare parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Read the reviews on an Angi pro's profile page' and enumerates the specific data fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like angi_search_pros (search) and angi_get_pro (pro details) by explicitly focusing on 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 implies usage: when you have a pro's profile URL and want their reviews. It also gives a concrete use case ('Filter by rating to isolate complaints or praise'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool. The context is clear though.

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