get_reviews

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing real behavioral quirks: texts are machine-translated into Russian with the original preserved in original_text, the rating is aggregated across all variants, and aspect tags are optional. It also flags the review-composition details that affect how an agent interprets results.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core capability, and the second efficiently lists return fields in a scannable colon-list format. Every sentence adds either scope or behavioral detail, with no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters, an output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It explains the key output semantics, while the schema covers all input parameters and the output schema covers return structure, leaving no critical gap.

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 100%, and the input schema already explains each parameter thoroughly, including sort semantics, item_id URL formats, source_id auto-correction, and aspect-tag examples. The main description adds only a general mention of sorting/filters and optional aspect tags, so it does not materially improve parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 names a specific resource ('buyer reviews') and a clear action ('get'), then details exactly what is returned: review fields, item rating, star split, and optional aspect tags. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools, which target search, single-product details, and comparison rather than reviews.

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 intended use is implied clearly by 'Buyer reviews with real pagination, sorting and filters' and the item_id requirement, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus a sibling like get_product. The description also mentions the item rating, which could overlap with get_product, so exclusions or routing guidance would help.

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