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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does disclose useful behavior: variant aggregation, sort modes, the returned field set, and the cost model ('1 point per returned record'). It omits auth requirements and pagination interaction between start_page and max_items, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a compact field list and sort/cost notes. The dense enumerated field list is slightly list-like but every clause carries information, so it stays efficient.

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?

A read-only review tool with no output schema needs the return shape described, and the description delivers that via the field enumeration plus sort and cost context. Only pagination semantics and failure modes are left unaddressed, which is acceptable at this complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents product, sort, max_items and start_page fully. The description only echoes the sort options and the cost implication of max_items, adding little beyond the structured fields. 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 ('Get customer reviews for a Hepsiburada product'), and adds meaningful scope detail ('aggregated across its variants') that separates it from sibling product/detail tools like run_hepsiburada_products. The enumerated return fields make 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?

Usage context is implied through the aggregation-across-variants note and the sorting options, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer run_hepsiburada_products or run_hepsiburada_products_search instead, and no preconditions on the product identifier.

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