Search review text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it returns 'matching reviews with the product they are about', and the Japanese example clarifies the intended query type. No contradiction exists. However, it stops short of describing result ordering, pagination, or edge cases, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loads the core function, and includes a usage example plus sibling differentiation. Every word is purposeful; there is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 read-only search tool with 4 parameters, the description adequately covers what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. The schema supplies parameter details, and annotations cover safety. The only slight gap is the lack of mention of rating filters, but these are visible in the schema, so the overall context is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke it.

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 75%, and the schema already provides detailed descriptions for query, min_rating, and max_rating, including the ANDing behavior and full-text index fallback for short queries. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information, so it does not compensate for the undocumented limit parameter. Baseline of 3 is correct since the schema carries the semantic burden.

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 'Full-text search over review bodies', which is a specific verb+resource pairing that immediately identifies the tool's function. It further differentiates from sibling tool search_products by explicitly stating it searches review content rather than product names, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 this tool: 'Use this for questions about what customers say', and contrasts it with search_products which 'only matches product names'. This provides clear when-to-use and alternative guidance, fulfilling the dimension fully.

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