customer_review_responses__get

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects), but it also does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and target resource, followed by the endpoint. There is no unnecessary repetition or filler.

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?

For a simple get-by-ID operation with good annotations and complete parameter schemas, the description is sufficient. It clearly tells the agent what the tool does and leaves parameter details to the schema, which is complete. No output schema exists, but the return value is implicitly the requested customer review response.

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 fully documents the id, include, and fields_customerReviewResponses parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema descriptions are thorough (e.g., 'ID from the matching list call', cost of includes, 200 KB row size), so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Read') and the specific resource ('one customer review response by ID'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also includes the HTTP endpoint, further disambiguating it from related siblings like customer_review_responses__create or customer_reviews__response__get.

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 context: you should use this tool when you have an ID of a customer review response to read. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the operation is simple and self-evident from the description and the parameter description ('ID from the matching list call').

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