Read the reviews on a Google Business listing

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

Adds non-obvious behavior: read-only and free (0 credits), requires Google Business Profile connection and API approval, and warns that an empty page doesn't mean no reviews. These are not implied by annotations and are valuable for correct invocation, covering prerequisites and error nuances.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: core purpose, strategic context, field explanation, warnings, prerequisites. It is front-loaded with the main content and structured logically, making efficient use of words.

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 no output schema, the description lists the response fields and warns about pagination edge cases, and covers prerequisites and error handling. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly describe pagination token behavior beyond the empty page warning, but overall it is complete enough for an agent.

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 covers 75% of parameters with descriptions; the description doesn't add any parameter-specific guidance beyond what's in the schema, so it stays at the baseline of 3. It does not compensate for the undocumented pageToken parameter.

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 explicitly states the tool lists reviews with specific fields (star rating, reviewer, text, date, reply status) and clearly calls it a read operation. It also distinguishes it from the reply tool by mentioning the reply field, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides context for when to use (to work the list of unanswered reviews) and advises against computing average ratings from one page, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_google_business_questions or google_business_insights. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit alternatives.

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