Reviews list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds beyond annotations by disclosing pagination behavior (limit/offset), active review filtering, and that reviewId is needed for answers. This is strong context but not full coverage of all behavioral traits.

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 three sentences, concise and front-loaded. The first sentence is a bit long including the tool name in parentheses, which is slightly redundant but not excessive. No wasted words, but could be slightly streamlined.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the returned fields and pagination. It also references sibling tools and usage context. The tool is well-framed for an agent to understand its role and how to invoke it correctly.

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 100% with thorough descriptions for limit and offset. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only mentioning pagination and active reviews context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 returns a paginated list of active reviews for the current user, enumerating the fields (review id, score, text, author, listing, photos, seller answer, total). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the alternative for aggregate scores and linking to the review answer tool.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (to browse individual reviews and get reviewId for reviews_create_review_answer_v1) and when not to (if only aggregate score is needed, use reviews_get_ratings_info_v1). Provides clear exclusions and context.

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