list_reviews

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses ordering, the exact structure of returned reviews (reviewId, authorName, comments[] with detailed fields), and significant API limitations. It also indicates that reviewId can be used with other tools, adding valuable behavioral context.

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 compact yet information-dense, with two sentences covering purpose, return structure, API constraints, and integration with sibling tools. Every sentence earns its place and key information is front-loaded.

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 absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the expected review structure and fields, as well as API limitations. This is particularly important for a list operation and makes the tool behavior fully understood.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters (limit, package_name, translation_language) with clear descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline per calibration guidelines.

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 lists recent user reviews for an app and orders them newest first. It also references reviewId for downstream tools like get_review and reply_to_review, distinguishing it from sibling tools such as list_tracks.

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 concrete usage context by noting the Google Play API only returns reviews from the last 7 days, only those with written text, and only for production releases. This helps an agent decide when the tool is appropriate, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives beyond downstream references.

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