List reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description spends its words well: it adds the ordering guarantee ('newest first'), the source domain (Fresha or Google), and the pagination mechanics via next_cursor. It doesn't discuss page-size defaults or rate limits, but those are minor given the annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the ordering, then filters, then pagination. No filler and nothing buried at the end.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the fields each review contains plus sort order and cursor paging. Combined with the fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 is already documented. The description restates the filter dimensions in prose (rating, source, words, unreplied) and names next_cursor for paging, but adds no syntax, defaults, or edge-case semantics beyond what the schema provides — notably omitting `limit`.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Client reviews of the business') plus the exact payload each item carries (rating, text, author, client, appointment, source, replies). An agent can immediately distinguish this read-only listing from the mutation sibling reply_to_review 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?

Usage context is concrete: filter by rating, source, words, or reviews still without a reply, and page with next_cursor. The 'still without a reply' filter implicitly routes the agent toward reply_to_review, but no sibling is named and no exclusion (e.g. when to use a different listing tool) is stated.

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