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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: pagination, the `responded` filter concept, and the 1-5 rating scale with priority guidance. This is helpful context an agent would not otherwise know.

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, each earning its place: purpose, filtering guidance, and prioritization advice. No filler, front-loaded with the core action. Easily scannable for an agent.

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 covers purpose, filtering, and rating semantics, but because the `responded: false` filter is not reflected in the input schema, there is a dangerous gap between the documented workflow and the actual invocation contract. Without an output schema, the agent also gets no explicit statement of the response structure beyond implied fields.

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. However, the description tells users to 'Filter by `responded: false`,' but the input schema only includes `cursor` and `page_size` with additionalProperties: false. This is a significant mismatch that could mislead an agent into passing an unsupported parameter. The rating-scale information does add some meaning, but the phantom filter lowers confidence.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List reviews left on this seller's orders, paginated.' This clearly identifies the tool's scope and distinguishes it from siblings like seller_respond_to_review or orders_list. The mention of pagination and the seller context makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear, actionable context: 'Filter by `responded: false` to find reviews that still need a seller response.' It also gives prioritization guidance for lower-rated reviews. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clear enough for an agent to decide when to select it.

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