查询应用评论

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: the comments API does not support Service Account authentication, results are limited to 6-month spans, and site-country coupling restricts queries. This adds real operational context that annotations do not provide.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the most critical operational constraints. Every phrase earns its place.

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 14-parameter complexity, the description covers authentication, time limits, and site-country rules. With a rich schema and readOnly/openWorld annotations, it is mostly complete; the main omission is any indication of return shape or pagination behavior, which would further help an agent.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds cross-parameter semantics: begin/end are limited to 6 months, and site must align with the countries being queried. It does not add nuance for all optional filters like devReplyStates or sort, but the schema largely covers their meaning.

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 states a specific action ('查询应用评论列表') and resource, and adds important scope constraints (6-month span, single-site country limitation). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like agc_get_ratings or agc_reply_review, but the list semantics are clear and distinct enough.

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 explicit usage constraints: time span must not exceed 6 months, only one site's countries can be queried at a time, API client credentials are required, and the site must match the country's site. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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