Reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds real substance: the skill mode is capped to the newest 2000 reviews, and the user mode returns a score summary with named sub-metrics (star counts, quality, communication, timeline, expertise, hire-again, success rate). That is exactly the return-shape and data-limit context annotations cannot express.

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?

Three sentences: capability, constraint/use case, then next tools. Front-loaded with the verb and the mutually exclusive parameter rule before the rationale, so an agent can act after one sentence.

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?

Four optional parameters, no nested objects, no output schema — and the description covers the exclusivity rule, the return contents, the data-reachability ceiling, and the logical follow-up tools. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description rises above it by explaining the mutual exclusivity of username and skill and by characterizing what each returns (user → score summary; skill → cross-employer sentiment in a field). Page and limit are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable since they are self-documented.

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+resource ("Read the reviews employers wrote about a Ponisha user") and immediately names the two distinct modes: per-user reviews and per-skill recent reviews. No sibling tool covers reviews, and the dual-mode framing lets an agent pick the right call without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit hard constraint ("Give exactly one of username or skill"), a decision context for each mode (judge a freelancer before hiring / judge an employer before bidding), and routes onward with "Next: pn_profile, pn_project." That is when-to-use plus alternatives, leaving little to inference.

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