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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains output contents, pagination semantics (has_next_page), and the added per-page surcharge for sentiment analysis. It implies read-only behavior through "Get customer feedback" and lacks only minor details like rate limits.

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?

Three tight sentences deliver purpose, output contents, and key operational details with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, all params are documented in schema, and the description adds output-field enumeration, pagination guidance, sentiment filtering options, and a cost caveat. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented. The description adds value by explaining the intended pagination loop and clarifying that star_rating also accepts positive/critical sentiment beyond simple star values. This goes slightly beyond the schema's bare definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Get customer feedback for an Amazon seller by seller ID." This clearly distinguishes it from sibling seller tools like amazon_seller_profile (profile info) and amazon_seller_products (products). It also enumerates review content fields, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 gives clear context on how to use the tool: filter by star rating/sentiment and paginate using page until has_next_page is false. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose statement strongly implies this is the go-to tool specifically for seller reviews, which serves as adequate guidance among siblings.

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