Get reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds critical behavioral details: pagination, sorting, fields returned (rating, title, comment, truncated author name, role, service category, timestamp), and notably that full surnames are never returned. No contradictions.

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, each carrying essential information. The first sentence states the core functionality and sorting; the second details output fields and usage context. 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return structure (rating, title, comment, author display name, role, service category, timestamp) and pagination behavior. This is complete for a read-only paginated list tool.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the 'slug' parameter's provenance (obtain from muovi_search_professionals or muovi_get_professional) and clarifying the default limit (20) which is not in the schema. This enhances understanding.

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 it fetches paginated reviews for a single professional, sorted most-recent. It specifies the resource (reviews) and action (fetch), and differentiates from sibling tools which focus on professionals, cities, or services.

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 explicitly states the use case: 'Use this to surface social-proof when recommending a professional.' While it doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives, the context is clear and the statement provides direct guidance.

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