gplay_reviews

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get reviews', implying a read operation, but omits any detail about return format, pagination, sorting behavior, or potential limitations.

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 a single, focused sentence that succinctly conveys the core purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for its function and immediately understandable.

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?

Despite being a simple tool, it has 5 parameters with enums and defaults, but no output schema. The description fails to explain what a review entry looks like, how to control sorting/language/country, or any other behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 description does not mention any parameters, while the schema covers only 40% of them descriptively (appId and num). The highly relevant parameters like lang, sort, and country are left unexplained, and the description adds no compensatory meaning.

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's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('reviews of an app'), and identifies the platform ('Google Play Store'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'appstore_reviews' and other gplay_* tools.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gplay_app or appstore_reviews. The platform mention provides only implicit context, but there are no exclusions or decision criteria.

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