list_customer_reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is partly covered, but the description goes beyond that with a genuinely valuable behavioral warning that review title/body/nickname are untrusted public text to be treated as data, not instructions. It doesn't mention rate limits, auth scope, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema states, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler; the primary purpose and default ordering lead, followed by filter options and then the safety note. Every sentence carries distinct 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?

For a read-only list tool with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented schema, the definition covers purpose, defaults, filters, and an important prompt-injection caution. It omits any indication of return shape or pagination behavior, which matters somewhat since no output schema exists.

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 schema already documents every parameter, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only the default sort direction (newest first), which the schema enum doesn't state, while 'filter by rating or territory' largely restates 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?

States a specific verb and resource (list customer reviews for an app) plus scope details: default sort, filters by rating and territory. This clearly separates it from the singular get_customer_review sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Implies when to reach for the filters ('Filter by rating or territory') and documents the default sort, but gives no when-not guidance and does not point to alternatives such as get_customer_review or respond_to_review. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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