unanswered_reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond implying a search operation. It does not describe what happens if no reviews are found, nor does it explain the 'hours' parameter's role. With annotations covering safety, the description adds minimal value, hence a 3.

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 a single short sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While concise, it sacrifices necessary detail, but that is not a structure issue per se.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. However, the tool has one undocumented parameter and no usage guidelines. For a tool that likely involves filtering and time windows, the description is incomplete; it does not explain the 'hours' default or what constitutes 'unanswered' or 'negative'. It leaves key context gaps.

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 0%, so the schema field 'hours' has no description at all. The tool description does not mention the 'hours' parameter or its meaning (e.g., lookback window). With one parameter completely undocumented, the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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+resource: finding unanswered negative product reviews. It is clear what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like sla_breaches or stock_alerts at all. Without sibling differentiation, a 4 is appropriate.

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 list_orders or sla_breaches. The description does not explain the context or conditions under which unanswered reviews should be checked. It implies usage but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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