list_customer_reviews

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes beyond them with a meaningful trust-boundary disclosure — that title/body/nickname are public third-party text and must be treated as data, not instructions. It omits pagination/failure behavior, but the prompt-injection warning is real added value.

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 tightly packed sentences: purpose and defaults first, filters second, safety caveat last. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description does its part by naming the returned text fields and their untrusted provenance, and it covers scope, defaults, and filtering. Minor omissions remain (pagination behavior and volume limits are left to the schema parameters), so it falls just short of fully self-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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the default sort direction ('newest first by default') is stated only here. It maps the rating/territory parameters to their filtering intent, exceeding the schema's bare field docs.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb+resource ('List customer reviews for an app') along with default ordering and available filters, so the agent immediately knows what the tool returns. It does not explicitly name the singular sibling get_customer_review or any other alternative, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 usage by stating the default sort and the two filter dimensions ('Filter by rating or territory'), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. However, it never contrasts with respond_to_review or get_customer_review, nor states prerequisites such as needing a valid appId or credentials.

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