get_reviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses what the tool returns (overall rating, breakdown, individual reviews with comments and reviewer info) but does not mention potential behaviors like default limit, sorting defaults, pagination, or error conditions. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second lists return details. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource and contains zero fluff.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description explains return values in good detail. It covers the essential behavior for a list/review tool, though it lacks notes on pagination or error handling. Given the moderate complexity, it is fairly complete.

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 has 100% description coverage for all parameters, including defaults and enums. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's function: 'Get guest reviews for a specific hotel' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_hotel_details by focusing exclusively on reviews and detailing the return content, including rating breakdown and individual review details.

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 implicitly communicates when to use the tool: when you need guest reviews for a specific hotel, and the required hotelUrl parameter signals that you must already have a hotel URL. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes the use case clear.

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