get_reviews_by_shop

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. It states 'Get reviews for a shop' but does not reveal if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or includes error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 ('Get reviews for a shop') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It could be slightly more informative, but it is appropriately concise for its purpose without being under-specified like a tautology.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values (e.g., review format, pagination metadata), error conditions, or authentication needs. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured behavioral hints, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'shop_id', 'limit', and 'offset'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as parameter constraints or examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 'Get reviews for a shop' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('reviews for a shop'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., all reviews vs. filtered) and does not distinguish it from the sibling tool 'get_reviews_by_listing', which targets reviews for listings rather than shops. This vagueness prevents a higher score.

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 does not mention the sibling tool 'get_reviews_by_listing' for reviews by listing, nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or context for shop-based reviews. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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