mdl_reviews_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on whether the review must exist, authorization needs, or what happens for missing IDs.

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 fragment is short but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. It is front-loaded only in the sense that there is nothing else to say.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description should at minimum state what is being fetched and by what identifier. Neither is present, leaving the agent to infer everything from the name.

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 0% for the single required review_id parameter, and the description provides zero compensating detail. It does not clarify that review_id accepts either a positive integer or a 1-128 char alphanumeric string identifier.

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?

"Reviews: get." essentially restates the tool name (mdl_reviews_get) without adding scope, target, or output information. It does not distinguish this retrieval tool from siblings like mdl_titles_get_reviews, mdl_reviews_check_already_wrote, or the review mutation tools.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus the many sibling review/comment retrieval tools. No prerequisites, no alternatives, no exclusions are offered.

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