list_reviews

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that only text reviews from the last week are returned, and lists included fields. This is sufficient for a read-only listing tool, though it could mention that it does not modify data.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with main purpose, followed by output details and pagination note. Every sentence is informative and concise.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, behavior, output fields, and pagination. It lacks details on error handling or translation behavior but is sufficient for typical usage.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal parameter-specific insight beyond the schema (e.g., pagination context for startToken). It primarily describes output behavior rather than parameter semantics.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'reviews for an app'. Provides specific details about returned fields (reviewId, author, star rating, comment text, device/app-version, developer reply) and temporal behavior (typically last week). Distinguishes from sibling tool 'reply_to_review' which handles replying, not listing.

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?

Explains the context: Google Play returns only text reviews from the last week. Mentions pagination via nextPageToken. However, no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool comparison beyond naming the sibling.

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