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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by documenting ordering, pagination, untrusted third-party text fields, and two important non-success states: setup_required and syncing. The setup_required guidance is especially valuable because it prevents misreporting zero reviews.

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-loads what the tool returns, then usage, alternative routing, safety guidance, and error-state handling. Despite covering many concerns, it stays dense and purposeful with no filler.

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 the tool's complexity, the description is complete enough for correct invocation: it covers scope, ordering, filters, pagination, alternative tools, untrusted content, and sync/setup edge cases. The output schema can handle return-value details without needing description support.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value with an example showing how app_id, rating, and has_reply combine for unanswered negative reviews, though most individual parameter semantics remain in the schema.

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 resource and scope: reviews of one app, newest first, with cursor pagination. It also names and routes away from search_reviews, so an agent can distinguish the two tools without opening either schema.

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 says to use this for recent feedback on a specific app, identifies period, rating, and has_reply as filters, and names search_reviews as the alternative for text search. The example clarifies a practical combined-filter use case.

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