Reviews list

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that reviews are active and paginated, and lists the returned fields. No contradictions, and additional context is helpful but not extensive.

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?

Three concise sentences with no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second gives usage hint, third provides alternative. Well-structured and easy to parse.

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 simple read-only list tool, the description covers the primary use case and return fields. It does not need to explain pagination since schema covers limit/offset. Slight gap: no mention of potential empty results or error cases, but acceptable given simplicity.

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% with limit and offset clearly explained. The description adds no new parameter details beyond mentioning 'paginated list', which is already implied. Baseline of 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 clearly states that the tool returns a paginated list of active reviews for the current user, listing specific fields. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool reviews_get_ratings_info_v1 by focusing on individual reviews rather than aggregate scores.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use the tool (to browse reviews and obtain reviewId for creating an answer) and when not to (if only aggregate score is needed, use reviews_get_ratings_info_v1). This is exemplary.

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