get_reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: true pagination allowing limit to exceed ~30, server-side star filters, spoiler exclusion behavior, the 'has_more' flag, and the cap at 100 to 'stay polite.' It also discloses that paging is capped and that spoiler-heavy books can return fewer than limit. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral disclosure.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a paragraph on backend behavior, and a bullet-like breakdown of parameters. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence adds value—pagination, ordering, aggregation, and parameter semantics are all covered. The front-loading of the core purpose ('actual review text, not just a score') is effective.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, 0% schema coverage, no enums), the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool returns, how pagination works, how filters behave, the meaning of 'has_more', and the cap on limit. The output schema exists, so return values don't need to be enumerated. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly and interpret its results.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It explains limit (max reviews, capped at 100), min_rating/max_rating (server-side star filters with examples like min_rating=4 for positive reviews), and exclude_spoilers (drop flagged reviews). It also explains the interaction between exclude_spoilers and pagination. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('reader reviews for a book'), and immediately distinguishes itself from a mere score by noting it returns 'the actual review text, not just a score.' It also clarifies it fetches from Goodreads' GraphQL backend, aggregates across editions, and returns reviews in 'most relevant' order, which clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_book or get_editions.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: when you need review text, not just a score. It explains pagination behavior, the 'has_more' flag, and the effect of filters like exclude_spoilers. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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