ikea_reviews

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does well: it discloses that this is a small representative set (not exhaustive), that reviews are curated by the product page, and that it includes an aggregate rating. It doesn't state whether it's read-only, but the non-destructive nature is clearly implied by the tool name and description, and no mutation is suggested.

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 earning its place: what it returns, the source, and the limitation. The key information is front-loaded, and there is no fluff or repetition of the schema descriptions.

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?

The description is complete for a simple retrieval tool: it specifies the data source, the fields returned, and the important limitation (curated handful, not full list). It doesn't provide an explicit output schema, but the description's listing of returned fields (title, rating, text, author) plus aggregate rating compensates. Minor gap: it doesn't detail the format of the aggregate rating, but that's not critical.

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%, and the parameter descriptions directly describe each field (item_no, country, language). The tool description itself does not add much beyond the schema, but the schema's descriptions are sufficient for an agent to know what each parameter is. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description doesn't detract or add.

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 gets an IKEA item's highlighted customer reviews, specifying the exact resource (item), the return fields (title, rating, text, author), and the source (product page's curated reviews carousel). It also includes the aggregate rating, making the scope of what's returned unambiguous.

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 gives clear context on the data source and the tool's scope (a small curated set, not the full paginated review list), which implies when it should be used—when a quick summary of representative reviews is needed. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like ikea_product or other review tools, so it misses an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the contrast with full review lists is informative.

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