get_reviews

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: line-scope reviews are not tied to a shade, the star split and average are computed for the chosen scope, and author names, e-mails, phones, and order numbers are never returned. These are meaningful privacy and aggregation behaviors beyond what annotations provide.

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, starting immediately with the returned fields, then adding aggregate behavior, scope nuance, and privacy guarantees. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only review-fetching tool, the description covers the returned data, aggregate statistics, scope semantics, and privacy exclusions. Pagination, sorting, limits, and required article are documented in the schema, and an output schema exists, so nothing critical is left unexplained.

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 five parameters. The description adds beyond this by explaining the line-scope behavior ('not tied to a shade') and how the star split/average relates to the chosen scope, which enriches the meaning of the 'scope' parameter.

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 identifies the tool as a buyer-reviews retriever and enumerates the exact fields returned (date, stars, text, pros, cons, verified flag, likes, photo count, time of use). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by mentioning the variant/line scope, making it obvious this is the review-specific tool among product search, store, and comparison tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: fetching reviews for a chosen article, with a selectable scope of 'variant' or 'line'. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer the appropriate use case.

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