Cluster review keywords & star distribution

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds operationally relevant detail beyond that: the fetch ceiling (up to 10 pages of 100 reviews), the credential requirement, and the linkage between onlyNegative and minRating's default ceiling of 3.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the outputs, then the key parameter switch and prerequisite. Three compact sentences with essentially no filler; only the parenthetical keyword-method note is arguably extra.

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 10-parameter aggregation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description names what is produced and covers the auth prerequisite and the main filtering toggle. Minor gap: no mention of how results scale with pages/topN or any rate/limit behavior beyond the page cap.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema omits: it explains that onlyNegative filters to stars ≤ minRating with a default ceiling of 3, and that 'pages' means pages of 100 reviews. The interaction between onlyNegative and minRating is not spelled out in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch reviews') plus a concrete analysis outcome list: star histogram, average rating, CJK/Latin keyword clusters, and per-version negative hotspots. This clearly separates it from the raw-listing sibling agc_reviews_list and the aggregate agc_ratings_summary.

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?

Gives conditional guidance for one parameter ('Set onlyNegative=true to focus on stars ≤ minRating') and a prerequisite ('Requires the API-client credential'), but never states when to choose this over the sibling agc_reviews_list or agc_ratings_summary. Usage is implied by the analysis framing rather than declared.

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