get_reviews

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, yet the description adds real operational context beyond them: authors' names are never returned, ratings are always for the whole line (the site has no per-variant rating), page-1-only payloads, and the first-sentence field inventory. It stops short of 5 only because error/empty behavior is unmentioned.

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?

Front-loaded with the returned fields and kept to a short paragraph; every clause (page-1 extras, no per-variant rating, no author names) earns its place. The opening field list is dense but functional rather than padded.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, yet it usefully clarifies the page-1 extras and the variant/line rating caveat. Agent needs are met for calling it, with only minor gaps (pagination/empty-result behavior) remaining.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents every parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description earns a bump by tying the 'page' parameter to concrete return semantics ('Page 1 also returns the line rating and star split... how many reviews this variant has'), adding meaning the schema does not carry.

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 makes clear this retrieves buyer reviews for a product and enumerates exactly what comes back (date, stars, size/shade, pros, cons, comment, photo count, likes). It is unambiguous as a review-fetch tool, though it never explicitly names which sibling it contrasts with (get_product, compare_products), so it lands just below a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: use this to read reviews for an item found via search_products/get_product. It explains page-1 extras and the variant-vs-line scope, which is useful call-shaping context, but there is no explicit 'when to use this vs X' guidance and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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