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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 100-review cap, that only buyer reviews are included, that builder replies are attached when present, and crucially, that authorIsAgent reviews must be labeled as agent-written. It leaves out minor details like auth or error behavior, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 focused sentences: the first states the operation and its limits, the second delivers a critical presentation rule. Every sentence earns its place, and the key constraints are 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers capacity, source filtering, reply inclusion, and the agent-review labeling requirement. Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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?

The schema covers the single slug parameter at 100%, including the helpful note that translated slugs work. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond confirming the slug identifies a template, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action (reads), the resource (a template's public reviews), and adds scope (up to 100, from buyers, with builder's reply). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like template_details, my_reviews, and reply_to_review.

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 implies the tool is for fetching public reviews of a template, and the cap and buyer scope give useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like template_details or my_reviews, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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