get_user_reviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses return data fields (author, content, votes, playtime, timestamp, length) and provides an example, but it does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, authorization requirements, or error conditions. This is helpful but not exhaustive.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a list of return data, and a usage example. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no redundancy or irrelevant content.

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 complete input schema, available output schema, and lack of annotations, the description covers the essential context: purpose, return data, and an example. It lacks explicit error-handling or edge-case guidance, but for a simple retrieval tool, it is quite complete.

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?

The input schema describes all parameters with 100% coverage, including defaults and value ranges. The description adds a concrete usage example that shows how parameters combine, but it does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 purpose: 'Retrieves user reviews for a game' (게임의 사용자 리뷰를 조회합니다). It specifies the action (retrieve) and resource (user reviews), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_game_details and get_game_news.

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 includes a usage example (app_id=730, review_type='all', count=10) that demonstrates how to call the tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. The intended usage is implied by the verb 'retrieve', but no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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