get_game_reviews

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (outlet, score, author, language, platforms, excerpt, link) and the optional platform filter. As a 'get' operation, it implies read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly state safety profile or error behavior. Still, for a simple retrieval, this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and clearly structured. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core purpose and return fields, the second explains the optional filter. No unnecessary words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists the return fields. The schema covers parameters, defaults, and limits. The ID source is noted in the schema. For a simple read tool, the description together with schema provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 adds the platform filter context and ID origin, but these are already present in the schema. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond what the structured fields contain.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get individual critic reviews for a game by its OpenCritic ID.' It distinguishes itself from siblings (get_game, search_game) by focusing on reviews rather than general game info or search.

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 implies the usage context (retrieve reviews for a known game ID) and the schema's id description explicitly says the ID comes from search_game. However, no explicit alternatives or exclusions are stated, though the purpose itself differentiates it from sibling tools.

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