get_review_evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — that a single review can carry multiple labels — but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or how the many filters interact. With annotations carrying the read safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the scope before the multi-label caveat, with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than true density.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a 9-parameter, filter-heavy retrieval tool with 0% schema coverage and no usage guidance, the description leaves the agent without enough to select filters or understand the paging model.

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 0% across 9 parameters. The description's enumeration of label groups loosely maps to the group enum, but it never explains aspect_variant_ids (the required param), include_full_review, desired_state_variant_ids, contrary_state_variant_ids, or the paging/filter params. The description fails to compensate for the near-total schema gap.

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 names the resource (리뷰의 원문 근거 = review source-text evidence) and enumerates the label categories it covers (matching/contrary/other/state-unstated), which maps cleanly to the group enum. However, the verb 확인한다 ('check/verify') is vague — it does not make clear that this retrieves evidence text rather than validating it, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like find_review_attributes or list_review_states.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools. The reader is told what the tool covers but not under which circumstances to call it versus the many sibling review/attribute tools.

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