Product reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: it discloses that comments are often Chinese and delivery-related, and that rating=1 surfaces complaints — information an agent could not infer from the annotations.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then followed by the practical caveats. The telegraphic style ('(rating, date, comment, tags, merchant_replied)') is dense but every element carries information.

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?

With an output schema present and full annotation coverage, the description needs only to add orientation, which it does by characterizing the returned content and its language/domain. Minor gaps remain around pagination behavior and whether the rating breakdown is always included, but nothing critical to calling it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes beyond it by explaining what filtering on rating=1 actually yields (complaints), which is meaningful semantic guidance for the rating parameter rather than a restatement of the schema.

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?

Names the exact resource (a product's rating breakdown plus recent reviews) and enumerates the fields returned, so it is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like hktv_search or hktv_get_products. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement, which slightly softens the action clarity.

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 rating=1 tip gives concrete guidance for the complaint-lookup use case, and the schema's 'Product id from hktv_search' points at the chaining flow. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus hktv_get_products or other siblings, and no exclusions.

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