get_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is 'raw Markdown', which is useful, but it does not mention error behavior, authentication, or whether the tool performs any transformations. This is minimal but not misleading.

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, focused sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to explaining what the tool does, making it highly concise.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it names the resource, the return format, and implies the lookup mechanism. It could mention that the slug identifies a specific review, but the schema covers this. Overall, the tool is adequately specified within context.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the 'slug' parameter with an example and the acceptance of a full URL, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema does the heavy lifting, warranting the baseline score.

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 the verb ('Get'), the resource ('full evidence review'), and the format ('raw Markdown'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_conclusion and get_metadata by emphasizing 'full' review, making its purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 use when you need the complete review in Markdown format, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives. For a simple get tool, this is adequate but lacks explicit guidance about choosing among siblings.

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