get_reviews_of_cards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states it returns 'full review history' but offers no details about ordering, filtering, performance, or any limitations (e.g., does it include future reviews?). The output schema may partially compensate, but the description lacks behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is minimal. It lacks context about when to use this tool, how it differs from siblings like 'card_reviews', and any constraints or special behaviors. The presence of an output schema does not fully mitigate these gaps.

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 description does not add meaning beyond the parameter name 'card_ids'. With 0% schema description coverage, it should elaborate on constraints like number of IDs allowed, format, or behavior when invalid IDs are provided. The phrase 'specific card IDs' merely echoes the parameter name.

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 action ('Return') and the resource ('full review history') and specifies the input scope ('specific card IDs'). It is a distinct purpose, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'card_reviews' or 'get_latest_review_id'.

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 guidelines are provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes several review-related tools (e.g., 'card_reviews', 'insert_reviews'), but the description gives no context for choosing among them.

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