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

Well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses matching semantics (all words must appear, case-insensitive), result ordering (newest first), and the untrusted-third-party status of title/body/author_name/reply with an instruction to treat them as data only — a genuine prompt-injection safeguard. It also warns that a setup_required response must not be reported as 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 it searches and its scope, then the alternative, then safety and error-state notes. Every sentence carries distinct operational value; nothing restates the name or the annotations.

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?

Output schema covers return shape and pagination, so the description correctly omits them and spends its budget on matching semantics, routing, and failure states. For a 9-parameter read tool this is sufficient to call it correctly on the first try.

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 schema carries parameter documentation and the baseline applies. The description still adds meaning: query is AND-of-words and case-insensitive, and app_ids/platform act as scope narrowing rather than required filters. It does not elaborate on combining rating with has_reply or time-window interaction, which the schema leaves implicit.

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 (full-text search) and resource (review bodies) plus scope (all apps, or narrowed by app_ids/platform). It explicitly contrasts with get_app_reviews, so an agent can route between them without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use with a concrete example call, and names an alternative (get_app_reviews) with the condition that selects it (browsing one app without a query). It also prescribes agent behavior for two non-result states (setup_required, syncing).

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