zendesk_qa_workspace_reviews

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

Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the authentication requirement (ZENDESK_QA_API_TOKEN) but does not state that it is non-destructive, describe pagination behavior, or warn about rate limits or side effects.

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 an essential authentication note. It is front-loaded and efficient, containing no extraneous information. However, it could be slightly improved by briefly noting pagination support.

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?

Given the presence of 5 parameters, pagination, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or error conditions, leaving the agent with insufficient context for correct usage.

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?

All 5 parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain parameter interactions or provide examples. Thus, no increase above baseline.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves reviews for a specific Zendesk QA workspace within a date range. The verb 'Get' and resource 'reviews for a specific Zendesk QA workspace' are specific, and the mention of date range distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like zendesk_qa_get_reviews.

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 implies the tool is for fetching reviews for a workspace in a date range but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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