filter_review_media

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It states that only reviews containing image/video/media evidence are returned, which is useful, but it does not clarify pagination behavior, return format, whether it fetches from Amazon directly, or whether it is a pure read operation. This is a meaningful but not severe gap.

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 sentence with no fluff and the main selection criterion front-loaded. The slight redundancy in 'image or video/media evidence' is harmless. The size is appropriate for such a simple tool.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover what the caller receives and how pagination works, but it does not. It also fails to mention when to use this instead of or after get_amazon_reviews, leaving important usage context missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain either parameter. The agent must infer that asin is an Amazon product identifier and that page controls pagination from the schema constraints and naming conventions alone. The description adds no parameter-level guidance.

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 states a specific verb ('Filter'), a specific resource ('reviews'), and a distinctive criterion ('contain image or video/media evidence'). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_amazon_reviews, find_complaint_signals, and summarize_review_ratings.

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 implies the tool should be used when the agent needs only reviews with media evidence, but it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of get_amazon_reviews as the likely base review source. The use case is inferable but not stated.

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