jcrew_product_reviews

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It discloses pagination behavior ('one page', '10 reviews per page' via schema), empty-result handling, and the relationship between pid and site. It doesn't describe rate limits or authentication, but those are often not needed for read-only catalog tools. The empty-result handling is exactly the kind of behavioral detail that helps an agent avoid misinterpreting success as failure.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then details return fields, then provides parameter semantics and edge behavior. Every sentence adds information. It is slightly long but the density is justified given the return structure detail and cross-tool guidance. A bulleted structure could improve scannability, but the content earns its length.

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 review retrieval tool, the description covers: what it returns (page of reviews + summary), the exact source of pid, the storefront default, and the empty-result edge case. No output schema exists, so the description's enumeration of return fields (author, location, date, rating, headline, body, verified-purchase flag, average rating, rating count, per-star histogram, recommended ratio) is essential and complete. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds crucial cross-tool semantics that schema alone doesn't provide: pid is a style id like CX415 that comes from jcrew-search's products[].id field, and site must match the storefront the pid belongs to. This is exactly the contextual linkage an agent needs to chain search and reviews calls correctly.

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 states specific verb ('Get reviews'), resource ('J.Crew or J.Crew Factory product'), and enumerates the exact return fields (author, location, date, rating, headline, body, verified-purchase flag, rating summary with histogram and recommended ratio). It distinguishes itself from jcrew_product and jcrew_search by explaining that pid is a style id from jcrew-search's products[].id field.

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 usage prerequisites: pid must be a style id from jcrew-search's products[].id, and site must match the storefront the pid belongs to (default jcrew). It also explains edge behavior (empty result for no reviews or unrecognized pid) so the agent knows when the tool returns no data rather than an error.

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