Returns buyer reviews for an Etsy listing. Response includes count, avg_rating, total_rating_count, and a buyer_avatar, date, listing_id, listing_title, rating, text, language, listing_image, seller_replied}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| sort | Yes | ||
| offset | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing behavioral — no pagination, sorting behavior (a required 'sort' param exists), or rate/scope notes — and pads with a return-field dump that is redundant against the declared output schema.
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?
The first sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the second is a garbled, malformed field dump ending in a stray '}' with inconsistent comma usage. It also duplicates information that belongs in the output schema, so it neither reads cleanly nor earns its space.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-listed — yet the description spends its bulk doing exactly that. Meanwhile the input side, with three undocumented required params, is entirely uncovered, so the definition is incomplete where it matters most.
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 0% with three required parameters (id, sort, offset), yet the description explains none of them. The description fails to compensate for the total absence of schema documentation, leaving 'sort' and 'offset' semantics completely opaque.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Returns buyer reviews for an Etsy listing.' That is clear and distinct from generic review tools, though it never disambiguates from the sibling etsy_shop_reviews or etsy_listing (shop vs. listing scope).
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus etsy_shop_reviews, etsy_listing, or any other review tool, and no prerequisites or context stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
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.
