Seller list reviews

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

Beyond the read-only annotation, the description discloses pagination behavior and rating semantics, which is helpful. But it fails to mention that the filter instruction is not represented in the actual input schema, and it does not describe the output structure or any potential error cases, leaving some ambiguity about actual behavior.

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 well-structured, using two sentences to cover the core purpose, a filtering tip, and rating guidance. There is no redundant or unnecessary wording.

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 useful context about pagination and prioritization, but because there is no output schema, it should have described what a review object contains (e.g., `rating`, `responded`). The filter inconsistency also leaves the agent uncertain about how to actually retrieve unresponded reviews.

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?

Both schema parameters (`cursor`, `page_size`) are adequately described in the schema itself, but the description's instruction to filter by `responded: false` implies a parameter that does not exist in the input schema. Since `additionalProperties` is false, this guidance cannot be followed literally, which is misleading and undermines the parameter semantics.

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 lists reviews left on a seller's orders and that results are paginated, which precisely identifies the resource and action. It also differentiates this from related seller-order tools by specifying this is about reviews, not orders.

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 gives explicit guidance to filter by `responded: false` to find unreviewed responses and notes that lower ratings are higher priority, which helps the agent decide when to use this tool. However, it could be clearer about when to prefer this over `seller_respond_to_review` or `orders_list`, though the intent is reasonably inferable.

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