angi_list_my_reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by disclosing that records pass through raw and the response sets recordFieldsVerified: false. This goes beyond the structured annotations and gives operational context, though it does not explain the implication of that flag.

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-loading the primary function and then adding a clarified caveat. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the caveat is explained inline rather than left ambiguous. There is no wasted text.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the return structure (reviews + unratedPros) and a critical behavioral detail (recordFieldsVerified: false). This is complete for the tool's complexity and does not over-promise or omit necessary caveats.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, but it does describe the output structure (reviews and unratedPros), which is helpful given the absent output schema and parameter need.

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 returns reviews written by the signed-in user plus unrated pros, using a specific verb ('Reviews') and resource ('signed-in user' reviews). This distinguishes it from siblings like angi_get_reviews, which likely target other reviewers or pros.

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 use for the signed-in user's own reviews and mentions a shared caveat with projects, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as angi_get_reviews or list_my_projects. No exclusion or alternative is named, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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