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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: fixed page size of 10, the empty-list-with-summary outcome, a ~50s latency warning and a retryable 503 failure mode. This is exactly the operational information an agent needs to plan retries and timeouts.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct value: return shape, sku provenance, empty-result behavior, and latency/failure. Nothing is repeated and the primary payload description is front-loaded.

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 only three parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile, this description covers the remaining gaps — rate/latency risk, empty results, and pagination granularity — leaving nothing an agent needs unknown.

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 sku, page and country are already fully documented, including page size and default. The description restates the page size and sku provenance without adding new semantics, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 and resource — returns one page (10) of a Jumia product's written verified reviews — and enumerates the returned fields plus the rating summary. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like jumia_product or jumia_search.

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 tells the agent to pass the sku from jumia_search, jumia_category or jumia_product, and describes the edge case where a product has ratings but no written reviews (empty list plus summary). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as jumia_product as a source of review data, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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