List reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the description's added value is in what the read returns: newest-first default, the fields per review, and the per-star average and count. It doesn't mention pagination limits or that results are scoped to the caller's own Booksy profile, which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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 opening line front-loads the purpose and the routing hint closes the second paragraph, which is good structure. There is some redundancy between the opening summary ('rating, text, services, staff and your reply') and the second sentence's field list, which repeats the same content nearly verbatim.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the return-shape burden by naming the per-review fields and the aggregate rating summary. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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% – page, sort and per_page all carry defaults and bounds in the schema. The description only restates the newest-first default, adding no paging or sort semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first line names the specific resource ('Client reviews of your business') and enumerates what each record contains (rating, text, services, staff, reply). This is clearly distinct from reply_to_review and from other list_* siblings, so an agent can pick it without opening 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 says to use reply_to_review for the write path and states the default ordering ('newest first by default'), which covers the main read-vs-write fork. It doesn't say when this is the wrong read (e.g. per-staff or single-review lookups), but the tool has one obvious job and the alternative is named.

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