angi_list_my_reviews

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those hints by disclosing that records pass through raw and that the response sets `recordFieldsVerified: false`, which alerts the agent to unverified data.

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 concise sentences that lead with the core purpose and follow with the important data-quality caveat. There is no filler or repetition of annotation information.

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 parameterless, read-only, idempotent tool, the description provides enough detail about what the response contains (`reviews`, `unratedPros`) and a key caveat (`recordFieldsVerified: false`). No output schema exists, but the description supplies the essential return semantics.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly focuses on the response content rather than inputs, matching the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 the signed-in user's written reviews plus unrated pros (`unratedPros`). This distinguishes it from sibling review tools like `angi_get_reviews` by anchoring to the signed-in user and their prompted ratings.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when retrieving the current user's reviews or rating prompts. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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