list_reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's added value is the data-availability caveat: Play returns only roughly the last week, and only reviews with text. That is genuinely useful context an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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?

Two short sentences, no waste, and the most important constraint (recent-only coverage) is front-loaded ahead of the parameter note.

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 four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and pagination via page_token, the description should explain result limits and paging behavior. It covers only translation and recency, leaving an agent unable to reason about pagination or which app's reviews are returned.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it only explains translation_language (with a concrete example value like "id"). page_token, max_results, and package_name — including whether package_name is optional and what happens when it is null — are left entirely undocumented.

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 the resource (user reviews) and a narrowing scope (recent, text-bearing), which is enough to distinguish it from the singular get_review and from reply_to_review. The listing verb is only implied by the tool name rather than the description, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'recent user reviews' but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_review or how it relates to reply_to_review. The only real guidance is the Play recency caveat, which is about data coverage rather than tool selection.

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