restaurant_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 doesn't disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, whether reviews are capped, error behavior for invalid IDs, or whether the call is read-only/safe — all of which matter for a review-listing tool.

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?

A single clean, front-loaded sentence with no waste, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than from disciplined editing.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the agent still needs pagination semantics and a rough sense of the returned review fields; neither is present, leaving the definition underpowered for correct invocation.

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%, so neither parameter is documented anywhere. The description implies restaurant_id by saying 'for a restaurant' but says nothing about the 'page' parameter, its default of 1, or what page size to expect.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get reviews for a restaurant'), which naturally separates it from siblings like restaurant_detail, restaurant_menu, and restaurant_photos. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives or clarifying scope (all reviews vs. a page).

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus restaurant_detail or restaurant_photos, no prerequisites, and no note on how pagination should be driven. The agent must infer all usage context from the tool name alone.

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