Get a user's reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: if username is omitted, it defaults to the authenticated user. This goes beyond the schema and annotations by clarifying the default behavior.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately adds the key default behavior, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 simple read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It covers the default user behavior and implies the return is a list of reviews, which is sufficient given the low complexity and strong annotations.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both page and username parameters fully documented. The description adds minimal parameter-specific value, mostly restating the username default that is already in the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 retrieves reviews written by a user, with the verb 'get' and a specific resource. It also distinguishes its scope from the sibling tool get_game_reviews by focusing on reviews authored by a user rather than reviews for a game.

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 useful context by noting the default is the authenticated user's own reviews, implying it is used for viewing a user's review history. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_game_reviews or get_activity, nor does it provide exclusions.

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