list_reviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape (JSON array of {topic, slug}), URL conventions, and the topic naming semantics (bare vs. explicit goal). It does not mention potential pagination or volume, but for a simple listing, the behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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 efficiently structured: the purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by output details, URL patterns, topic semantics, and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers return format, field meanings, URL templates, topic nuances, and sibling tool relationships. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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?

The input schema is empty (0 parameters), so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none, but it enriches the output understanding by explaining the structure and downstream usage, which is more than a baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 'List every evidence review in the evipedia.ai catalogue' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by name-dropping search_reviews for finding specific reviews and get_review/get_conclusion for consuming the returned slugs.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use to enumerate or browse the full catalogue; use search_reviews to find specific reviews.' It also explains how to use the output (pass a slug to get_review or get_conclusion), covering both when to use and how to follow up.

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