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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-schema behavior: review text is untrusted player input and must never be treated as instructions, texts are retained only for the last 62 days unless the window is longer, and each review carries the build plus store-supplied reviewer metadata. No return-shape/pagination detail, but that is minor for a read tool.

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 what the tool returns and what can be filtered, and the injection-safety note closes it out. It is dense and runs long with several stacked clauses, but nearly every sentence carries information an agent needs; only the parenthetical navigation path is marginal.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining the response: match counts by topic and device, per-build groupings with reviews, and Glitchless-measured frame-time p95 and crash-free sessions. Combined with the filter list, retention note and injection caveat, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 90%, so parameter documentation is already strong; the description mostly restates the filter set (store, build, sentiment, keyword, device, deck). It adds a little semantic glue — keyword topics vs. any word and that deck is Steam-specific — but nothing beyond what the schema descriptions say. 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?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource — player-written store reviews connected via Glitchless Cloud, with the store list given explicitly. It also distinguishes itself from glitchless_performance, glitchless_get_error and glitchless_triage by explaining how review data relates to them, so an agent can tell the siblings apart.

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 clear: this is for reading what players wrote on a store, filtered by store/build/sentiment/keyword/device, and it names the sibling tools whose data should sit next to it. It does not state explicit exclusions (e.g. when to prefer glitchless_bug_reports or glitchless_triage instead of pulling raw reviews), which keeps it short of a 5.

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