get_shop_reviews

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get reviews'), but doesn't specify aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (beyond what the schema hints at with limit/offset), or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating the tool's function, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or return format, which are crucial for proper tool invocation. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is lacking for a tool of this complexity.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters (shop_id, limit, offset, min_created, max_created) with types, constraints, and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool fetches reviews, which is already clear from the tool name and schema. This meets the baseline for high 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'reviews for a specific Etsy shop', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_shop_listings' or 'search_shops', which might also retrieve shop-related data, so it misses the top score for specificity against alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'search_shops' or 'get_shop_listings', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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