Get Reviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get recent reviews' implies a read operation but does not explain what 'recent' means (time window), sorting order, auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. This is thin coverage for a tool querying store review data.

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?

A single six-word sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core purpose. However, it is minimal to the point of being under-specified for an environment with 200+ sibling tools, so it is concise but not 'appropriately sized' for the decision context.

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 schema is well-documented and an output schema exists, which lowers the burden on the description for return values. However, with zero annotations and a sibling list containing directly overlapping tools (get_review, scrape_reviews, get_ratings_report, reply_to_review), the one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions for all three parameters including defaults and constraints (e.g., 'Maximum number of reviews to return (default: 50, max: 100)'). The description itself only implicitly maps to package_name and adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('get'), resource ('reviews'), and qualifying scope ('recent', 'for an app'), so the core operation is clear. However, it does not differentiate from near-siblings like get_review (singular) or scrape_reviews, leaving some ambiguity about which reviews source or granularity this covers.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_review, scrape_reviews, or get_ratings_report. The description is purely a statement of purpose with no usage context, exclusions, or alternative routing, which is a significant gap given the large sibling list.

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