google-play-reviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions pagination support but does not explain other behavioral aspects such as rate limits, authentication requirements, whether reviews are sorted by recency or relevance, or what happens when the continuation_token is omitted.

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 very short and front-loaded, containing only one sentence. It wastes no words, but the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary detail.

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 annotations and the tool's complexity (7 parameters including pagination and filters), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the output, the meaning of the continuation token, or how filtering works, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names which are cryptic.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning for any of the 7 parameters (e.g., sort, num, filter_rating, continuation_token). The enum values for sort are cryptic (2,3,1) with no explanation.

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 retrieves user reviews for a specific app with pagination support. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('user reviews'), and the mention of pagination distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other things like age filters, rating filters, or app details.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context about when it is appropriate to call this tool over related sibling tools like google-play-search or google-play-app.

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