google_list_reviews

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic listing action. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to indicate whether this is read-only, requires authentication, returns paginated results, or any other important behavior. It is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.

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 concise sentence with no redundant or extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient, meeting the needs of a simple tool.

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 has one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the nature of the output (e.g., list of review objects, pagination, ordering), leaving the agent to infer. For a tool of this complexity, a more complete description would be helpful but not strictly required.

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% coverage with a clear 'packageName' description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. By the metric, baseline 3 is appropriate since schema covers the parameter adequately.

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 'List user reviews for an app' clearly states the action (list) and resource (user reviews). The tool name 'google_list_reviews' distinguishes it from siblings like 'google_get_review' (single) and 'apple_list_reviews', though the description omits mention of the platform. It is specific enough for selection.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'google_get_review' for a single review or other listing tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, pagination, or filtering conditions that would help an agent decide.

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