Restaurant reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'newest first' framing and the shape of a review, but says nothing about refresh cadence, moderation, or vendor-reply availability that would be novel beyond the output schema.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose up front and the usage note second. The parenthetical field list ('rating, text, what they ordered, vendor reply') is mildly redundant given a dedicated output schema, but nothing is padded.

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 simple read-only lookup with full schema coverage, complete annotations and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what is fetched and why to fetch it. No gap remains that would cause a mis-call.

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% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the page size of 10 and the vendor_code format with its source tools. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond 'recent', so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Read recent customer reviews of a restaurant') and lists the payload fields. The 'restaurant/vendor' scope implicitly separates it from market_reviews, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 a concrete decision context: 'Use to judge quality, delays or packaging before recommending a restaurant.' That tells the agent when this tool is worth calling, but offers no exclusions or named alternatives when restaurant data is not what's needed.

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