get_reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns both product and group ratings unfiltered, and it explains the YAMARKET source provenance. It does not mention pagination behavior beyond the schema, but the schema already documents page/limit semantics.

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 with the return-value inventory, then adds two clarifying notes. It is slightly dense but every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 rich schema (100% coverage), annotations, and output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the non-obvious YAMARKET source and the unfiltered rating behavior, which are the main gaps an agent would face. It could mention that `scope` affects the returned ratings, but the schema already covers scope semantics.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description adds a small amount of context (e.g., what `source` YAMARKET means, and that ratings are unfiltered), but it does not substantially expand on parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear inventory of what the tool returns (date, stars, pros, cons, text, variant, source, votes) and explicitly names the resource (customer reviews). It also distinguishes itself by noting the product/group rating context and the YAMARKET source meaning, which helps separate it from sibling tools like get_questions or get_product.

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 explains the meaning of the `source` field and clarifies that the returned ratings are unfiltered, which helps an agent understand when to rely on them. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context signals and sibling list make the intended use fairly clear.

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