pretalx_get_submission_reviews

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

The description discloses one behavioral trait: graceful degradation when reviews are unavailable. However, with no annotations and no other details, important aspects like error handling, authentication needs, or return behavior remain undisclosed.

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 sentence that concisely captures the core purpose and a key behavior, with no wasted 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?

For a tool with three parameters and no annotations, the description is too bare. It fails to clarify which parameters are needed for 'one submission' or what 'degrade gracefully' entails, making the tool under-specified.

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 provides no information about the parameters event, include_raw, or submission_code. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description does not compensate, leaving the agent without guidance on how to call the 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 the tool retrieves reviews for a single submission, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pretalx_get_submission and pretalx_review_summary.

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 phrasing 'for one submission' implies the appropriate use case, but alternatives and exclusions are not explicitly mentioned. It provides clear context without contrasting against sibling tools.

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