get_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but it doesn't disclose potential outcomes like 404 handling or the role of translation_language in the response. Adequate but minimal.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place.

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?

Tool is a simple lookup with an output schema and 3 fully documented parameters. The description is minimal but sufficient for a low-complexity operation. Could mention translation behavior or error handling, but not essential given the schema.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already described. The description adds only 'by its ID,' which mirrors the schema's review_id description. No additional semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear, specific verb+resource: 'Get a single user review by its ID.' Distinguishes from siblings like 'get_reviews' (plural) and 'reply_to_review' by emphasizing single retrieval by 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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. It doesn't explicitly state 'use get_reviews to list reviews first' or mention scenarios where this tool is preferable. The sibling name 'get_reviews' implies a listing counterpart, but no explicit routing is given.

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