chrono24_dealer_reviews

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it states that it fetches only one page (pagination behavior) and spells out the full return field set since there is no output schema. It doesn't cover items like what happens on empty results or how an agent knows pagination is exhausted, but the core behavioral traits an agent needs are disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The purpose and pagination behavior are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the field enumeration in the second earns its place because there is no output schema to carry that information. Nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 read-only reviews fetch with five fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it compensates for the missing output schema with a field list and discloses one-page behavior. The remaining gaps are minor — no statement about default sort behavior or how to detect the end of pagination — but they don't block correct invocation.

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 100% and each parameter already has a thorough description (page base, sort enum, min_stars range, page_size range, slug source). The description adds one genuinely useful nugget — that slug matches the one chrono24-dealer takes — which is a modest value-add above the schema, so it sits at the baseline of 3.

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+resource ('Get a Chrono24 dealer's buyer reviews') and then enumerates the exact content of the result: reviewer name/country, date, star-rating breakdown, recommendation, free-text comment, and dealer reply. This makes the tool's job unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like chrono24_dealer, chrono24_search, and chrono24_listing.

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 makes the use case clear: call this when you want a dealer's buyer reviews, and it even gives cross-tool operational guidance ('slug is the same dealer slug chrono24-dealer takes'). It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when-not-to-use, but the context is strong enough that an agent won't confuse this with the dealer-info sibling.

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