list_reviewsList reviews for a live FastDrop product by its slug. Returns the average rating, total count, and individual reviews (rating, body, author, date). Unauthenticated - available to any agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Product slug | |
| limit | No | Max results, 1-50, default 20 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| count | Yes | ||
| average | Yes | ||
| reviews | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds that it is unauthenticated and details return data, going beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. No unnecessary words, every sentence adds value.
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?
Given rich annotations, complete schema, and output schema, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, authentication, and return data. No gaps identified.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds context about 'by its slug' but does not significantly exceed schema explanation. Baseline 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?
Description clearly states 'List reviews for a live FastDrop product by its slug' with specific verb and resource, and includes return fields. Distinguishes from siblings like list_comments and list_launches.
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?
Explicitly mentions 'Unauthenticated - available to any agent' and implies usage for reading reviews. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but provides sufficient context given siblings are for different resources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: searching by capability, getting product details, listing comments, launches, reviews, and searching by text/tags. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (find_tools, get_product, list_comments, list_launches, list_reviews, search_products), with clear and predictable verbs.
Six tools is appropriate for a product discovery server, covering search, detail retrieval, and listing of associated data without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool set covers the core operations for the domain: searching, viewing individual products, and browsing launches, comments, and reviews. No obvious gaps for a read-only discovery service.