get_seller_feedback

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful operational behavior: 'Each page costs 1 credit' and the max page limit. It also frames the tool's depth relative to aggregate data. There is no contradiction with annotations, and the description provides useful context beyond the structured metadata.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. Each paragraph earns its place: purpose, when-to-use, and cost/optimization tip. There is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description states the returned data (star ratings, comment text, dates), the key filters, the cost model, and the alternative tool. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly, including how to approach 'dissatisfied customers'.

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 all parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema with the max_rating tip ('set max_rating to 3') and the credit-per-page context for max_page. It does not explain every parameter, but it enhances practical understanding of the filter parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read individual buyer feedback entries for an Amazon seller: star ratings, comment text, and dates'. It clearly states the filterable dimensions and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_seller_profile by calling itself the 'reputation deep-dive tool' and contrasting aggregate scores versus individual comments.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this tool when the user wants to read actual buyer comments about a seller, analyze complaint patterns, or audit service quality.' It also names the alternative tool for a different need: 'For aggregate reputation scores... get_seller_profile is sufficient and cheaper.' The 'max_rating' tip adds a concrete strategy for a specific use case.

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