get_product_reviews

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the output (most recent reviews, average, total count) and that it mirrors the product page data. It does not state side effects, but as a get operation, it is reasonably transparent.

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 concise sentences provide all necessary information without redundancy. The purpose and output are clearly stated.

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 description gives a good overview of what is returned, but does not mention error handling, pagination, or edge cases. However, for a simple review retrieval tool, this level of detail is sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add much to parameter meanings beyond the schema, but the schema itself is clear (product slug/URL, minRating, withTextOnly).

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 tool retrieves customer reviews and rating summary for a Toco listing, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_product_detail or get_product_variants by focusing specifically on reviews.

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 explains why this tool exists (Toco server-renders reviews rather than exposing an API) and what it returns, giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives but implies the scope is reviews.

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