googleplay_reviews

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It reveals pagination behavior (auto-fetch multiple pages unless paginate=true) and the existence of a next_pagination_token, but does not explain how to use the token, rate limits, or that reviews are read-only. This is adequate but incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence is useful and contains no filler. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks details on the return format (e.g., review content, star ratings, dates) and full pagination flow (how to use next_pagination_token). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the paginate parameter by clarifying its effect ('only the requested page') beyond the schema. Other parameters are well-described in the schema already, so the description adds minimal additional value.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves Google Play reviews, with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('Google Play reviews'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like googleplay_app (app details) and googleplay_search (app search) by focusing on reviews. The mention of pages adds specificity.

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 provides guidance on pagination behavior ('Set `paginate=true` to fetch only the requested page'), which helps the agent decide when to use this parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like appstore_reviews or other Google Play tools, missing cross-tool guidance.

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