get_review_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, performance implications, or side effects. The return specification ('sections, items, and ratings') adds some clarity but is 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?

The description is extremely concise: two lines plus a docstring-style param/return note. It front-loads the key purpose in the first sentence. Every part is essential, with no redundancy or filler.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It specifies input format and output nature (details including sections, items, ratings). However, it omits details on output structure or potential edge cases, which an agent might need for complex downstream processing.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the parameter 'appraisal_id'. The description compensates by explaining it is 'The appraisal ID (EP_APPR_ID)', adding format and context that the schema lacks. This significantly aids correct usage.

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 detailed ratings, goals, and comments for a specific performance review. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_performance_reviews (likely listing) and search_reviews (searching) by focusing on one review's details. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from these siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_performance_reviews or search_reviews. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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