Scrape Reviews

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this tool scrapes public reviews, is read-only in nature, and bypasses the API's one-week limit. It does not disclose potential rate limits or legal/to-behavioral caveats of scraping, but it does meaningfully explain the mechanism and scope.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core purpose is stated first, followed by the key limitation/alternative and the competitor-app capability. Every sentence earns its place.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the core behavioral context well: purpose, limitation, alternative, and extended use case. It does not mention rate limits or whether output is paginated, but the output schema exists and the essential decision factors for selecting and invoking this tool are present.

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 baseline applies. The description adds one useful parameter-level insight: app_id can target competitors' apps. However, it does not add detail about num, sort, country, or language beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read public reviews') and a resource, and immediately distinguishes this tool from get_reviews by stating it goes back further than the Reviews API. It is clear that scrape_reviews exists to access older reviews and competitor reviews, which sets it apart from the many sibling 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 explicitly names get_reviews as the alternative and gives a concrete condition for choosing this tool: 'the only way to read older reviews.' It also adds that it works for competitors' apps, giving an additional use case. This is actionable routing guidance.

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