get_reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: it clarifies that author names and order numbers are never returned, explains the header-number behavior for scope='variant', and notes that items without text are ratings only. It also states 'One request' which implies a single call fetches all results. This goes beyond the annotations and is valuable.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The first sentence lists the returned fields, and the second paragraph adds necessary edge-case behavior. There is no redundant repetition of schema details. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 core output contents, scope behavior, and explicit exclusions (author names/order numbers). It also mentions the single-request nature. The existence of an output schema means return-value details are not needed. It could mention pagination explicitly, but the schema's 'Page of 10' already covers that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a read-only tool with these annotations.

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 each parameter is documented. The description adds significant semantic value by explaining the nuances of the 'scope' parameter (e.g., how 'variant' still shows the whole card's numbers labelled) and the 'sort' parameter (e.g., 'worst' means complaints first). These clarifications are not fully captured in the schema and help the agent choose correct 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 it returns buyer reviews with specific fields (date, stars, pros, cons, comment, votes, photo count) and identifies the product each review is about. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_questions (questions) and get_offers (offers), so an agent can immediately understand its purpose.

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 three scopes ('card', 'variant', 'model') and how they affect the results, which gives usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_questions or get_offers, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage guidance is implied by the resource type but not stated outright.

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