get_reviews

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations. It explains semantic nuances: date is the edit date for edited reviews, purchase_badge appears only when Ozon still prints it, outdated reviews are not counted, the seller reply behavior, and the pagination behavior (fetch whole pages until limit, next_page). It also notes the review_policy indicating only buyers can review. This is rich behavioral context that annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive) do not cover. No contradictions.

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 fairly long but every sentence earns its place by explaining a specific facet of the tool's behavior or response structure. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then details the output fields and nuances. There is no fluff or repetition. However, it could be tightened by using bullet points or sub-sections, but given the complexity, the current format is acceptable. It is concise relative to the information it conveys.

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 6 parameters and a rich output, the description is remarkably complete. It covers pagination, sorting, scope, edge cases (edited reviews, outdated, purchase_badge), and the optional seller replies. It also explains what the output includes (per-review fields, line rating, SKU rating). It does not mention rate limits or errors, but that is beyond typical scope and the output schema exists to define structure. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. But the description adds substantial meaning to parameters: it explains the effect of 'scope' (sku vs line), the meaning of 'outdated' in reviews, how 'limit' works (fetch whole pages), and the optional seller replies. It also clarifies that 'product' can be a SKU or URL. This goes beyond the schema's short descriptions and helps an agent choose correct parameter values.

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 what the tool does: 'Buyer reviews with date, stars, text, pros, cons and the variant bought.' It also explains the line rating and SKU rating, so an agent knows exactly what information is returned. The verb 'get' and resource 'reviews' are explicit and distinct from sibling tools (search_products, get_product, compare_products) which focus on product discovery, details, and comparison.

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 when to use it by specifying it returns reviews, and it details the scope (sku vs line) so an agent can select the right granularity. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. But given the sibling names, it's clear this is for reviews rather than product lookups. The guidance is solid but not fully explicit about when not to use it; a 4 is appropriate.

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