metacritic_game_user_reviews

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

No annotations provided; description carries burden. States paginated nature and public data access, but does not disclose rate limits, error handling, or data freshness. Adequate for a simple listing tool but not comprehensive.

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: first defines purpose and pagination, second lists return fields and credential info. No fluff, front-loaded, every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema; description compensates by listing return fields. But misses details on sort parameter, default pagination, and any limits. Adequate for a simple tool but leaves some ambiguity.

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% (all four parameters described). Description adds no extra meaning for parameters beyond schema; it mentions pagination generically but not sort options or constraints. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states 'List a Metacritic game's user reviews' with specific verb and resource. Lists return fields (author, score, etc.) and notes credential-free access. Clearly differentiates from sibling Metacritic tools like metacritic_game_critic_reviews.

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?

Description mentions 'Credential-free public Metacritic data' implying no auth required, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., critic reviews, game details). No exclusionary guidance or context.

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