internal_reviews_v1

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies a read-only operation via the HTTP method and mentions the API key requirement, but it omits rate limits, error patterns, and the meaning of the response. The reference to an external guide is helpful but not a substitute for direct disclosure.

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 HTTP method and resource, followed by essential auth info and a link to the guide. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff.

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 tool has no output schema and nested query parameters, so the description should clarify return values and edge cases. It only says 'Reviews Score' without explaining the response format or potential errors. The guide link is useful, but the description itself is incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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?

The schema already documents the required query.appid parameter and its type, so the description's repetition of '必填: query: appid' adds little value. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't go beyond the schema to explain what appid represents or how to obtain it.

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 identifies the tool as a GET endpoint for 'Reviews Score', which is a specific resource distinct from sibling tools like internal_rates_v1. However, it doesn't elaborate on what constitutes a 'Reviews Score' or the shape of the response, so it's clear but not fully specific.

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. It states the required parameter and authentication, but doesn't mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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