jcourse_list_course_reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds pagination plus the default sort semantics (like_count), which is real context, but says nothing about result volume, auth requirements, or how paging interacts with total counts despite being an open-world web-backed read.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the ordering trade-off attached as a clarifying clause. Zero filler, nothing repetitive.

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?

With an output schema and full annotations, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers the pagination and default-sort essentials. But for an 8-parameter tool with four undocumented parameters and several near-identical list-review siblings, an agent still lacks guidance on filtering semantics and sibling choice.

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 exactly 50%: q, page, course_id, and page_size are documented in the schema, while order_by, ascend, rating, and semester are not. The description only partially compensates, explaining the meaning of like_count vs time-based ordering but leaving ascend direction, rating filtering, and semester matching entirely to the enum/type definitions.

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 and resource (分页读取课程评价) plus the default ordering behavior, so an agent can immediately tell it lists paginated reviews for a course. It does not distinguish itself from the close siblings jcourse_list_reviews or jcourse_list_followed_reviews, which is the only missing piece for a 5.

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?

It gives useful selection guidance for ordering (获赞 for representative reviews, 时间 for recent feedback), which is genuinely actionable. However, it never says when to prefer this over jcourse_list_reviews, list_my_reviews, or create/update_review, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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