gyg_get_tour_reviews

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the description's 'List' is consistent with a safe read operation. The description adds minor return-shape context (rating outline plus review items) but does not address pagination behavior, ordering defaults, rate limits, or other runtime traits. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the parenthetical adds useful return detail without 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?

The schema is rich and fully documents all parameters, and the readOnlyHint annotation covers the safety profile. The description provides the key return distinction (rating outline plus individual review items), which partially compensates for the missing output schema. It is not fully complete, but it is sufficient for a straightforward read-only review-listing 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has a meaningful description, including limits, defaults, and allowed enums. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, making the schema the primary source of semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') plus a clear resource ('customer reviews for a tour') and adds useful output scope ('rating outline plus individual review items'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gyg_get_tour or gyg_search_tours without needing to inspect the schema.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools. It relies entirely on the tool name and parameter schema to convey applicability.

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