metacritic_movie_user_reviews

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions pagination and that it's a read operation on public data. However, it does not disclose rate limits, destructive actions (none), or other behavioral traits beyond what the schema already implies.

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 two sentences (30 words), front-loaded with the verb 'List', and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers input requirements and return fields. However, it lacks details on sorting options and the exact output structure, which would be beneficial given no output schema.

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 the description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain sort options or other parameter nuances, but the baseline expectation is met.

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 lists user reviews for a Metacritic movie, specifies the returned fields (author, score, quote, date, helpfulness, spoiler flag), and distinguishes from sibling tools like metacritic_movie_critic_reviews and metacritic_game_user_reviews by the resource type and review category.

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 indicates credential-free public data, implying no authentication needed. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs siblings, but the name and context clearly differentiate it from critic reviews and game reviews, providing implicit guidance.

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