List comments and reviews

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description still adds valuable behavior: newest-first ordering, rating range 1-5, reviews may have no text, and all content is untrusted public input with a prompt-injection warning. This is far beyond the annotation baseline.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: scope and ordering, unread usage, rating/textless review invariant, and a security warning. The most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

The description is complete enough to call the tool safely: output schema covers return shape, annotations cover non-destructiveness, and the text covers ordering, unread filtering, rating behavior, and untrusted content. It could be more complete on filter semantics, but that gap belongs to parameter documentation.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for the remaining parameters. It adds meaning for 'unread' and 'rating' but leaves limit, offset, search, id_account, id_publication, social_network, and id_organization unexplained, relying on the agent to infer their meaning from names.

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?

Identifies the resource as the PlanVortex comment inbox covering post comments and Google Business reviews, and defines the sort order as newest first. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_messages and list_conversations, which cover direct messaging.

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 clear context: this is the central inbox for comments and reviews, and the unread filter targets items still awaiting attention. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'comment inbox' framing is enough to route an agent correctly.

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