get_data_reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, idempotent read. The description adds that reviews are 'authentic feedback' but doesn't cover rate limits, authentication, or the special behavior when language or getSentiment parameters are used (e.g., max 10 reviews with translation, sentiment analysis on last 1000). With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but missing key behavioral nuances.

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 long and formatted with markdown headers, but much of the content (e.g., 'What You Get' list) repeats the same concept (ratings, reviews, comments) without adding new information. It is not front-loaded with the most critical invocation details; key parameter behaviors are buried in schema. Structure is clear but not maximally efficient.

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 read-only tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the basic purpose but misses important behavioral aspects: the limit default of 200, maximum of 5000, the special constraint that language parameter caps results at 10, and the getSentiment behavior. These are critical for correct invocation and are not mentioned in the description. The description is adequate but leaves 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description only mentions hotelId as a query parameter and doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (guest reviews and ratings for a hotel). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like getExperienceTourReviews or get_data_hotel by naming the hotel guest review focus. An agent can identify this tool without ambiguity.

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?

Provides clear usage contexts (review display, rating aggregation, trust building, decision support) but does not explicitly name alternatives like getExperienceTourReviews or exclude when not to use this tool. The guidance is helpful but not exhaustive.

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