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. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: reviews are not linked to a variant, and buyer names/order numbers are never returned. It also clarifies the return includes aggregate rating. This supplements the annotations without contradiction.

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 two concise paragraphs with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and returned fields, immediately followed by the aggregate rating note and the variant caveat. Every sentence contributes useful information, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the tool's primary function, the data it returns, and key limitations (variant independence, no buyer names/order numbers). With an output schema present and a rich input schema, the agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly. The description does not need to explain pagination or field formats because the schema handles those.

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 each parameter (city, page, sort, limit, product, max_rating, min_rating, with_media) has a detailed description in the schema. The tool description does not add further parameter explanations beyond listing returned fields, which are not parameters. Since the schema fully documents parameters, the baseline 3 applies; the description adds no extra value here.

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 buyer reviews for a product, enumerating the returned fields (date, stars, text, pros, cons, likes, verified purchase, shop answer). It also notes it returns the aggregate product rating with star split. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_product (product details) and search_products (search).

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 is for fetching reviews and aggregate ratings, but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives. It does provide a useful caveat: 'Reviews are not linked to a variant' and 'Buyer names and order numbers are never returned', which helps the agent decide if this tool is appropriate. However, it does not name sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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