get_reviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It lists the data returned, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, behavior for products without reviews, authentication requirements, or side effects. The read-only nature is only implied by the name and content, not stated.

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 description is very short and scannable, front-loading the core resource and then enumerating the included data. It is a fragment rather than a complete sentence, but every phrase earns its place with no redundant wording.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read operation with a fully described schema and an output schema, the essential content is covered. Missing are practical details like pagination or limits for large review sets, and a clearer relationship to sibling tools such as product_details, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The schema already documents the single parameter thoroughly, including accepted formats (SKU or full ozon.ru URL) and the variant-SKU note. With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds no extra parameter detail, so the baseline of 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 description identifies the resource ('Reviews on their own') and enumerates the contents returned: overall score, individual reviews with author/score/text/date, and review photos. It lacks an explicit imperative verb, but combined with the tool name and content list, the purpose is clear and distinct from broader product tools.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like product_details or search. The phrase 'on their own' weakly implies standalone review retrieval, but no alternatives, exclusions, or selection conditions are stated, leaving usage to inference.

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