temu_review_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses pagination limits (200 per page, 10000 max), default sorting, the meaning of total=0, helpfulness as reference value not frequency, comment time vs collection time, and analytic caveats about not overgeneralizing.

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 very long and dense, but every clause carries practical value, covering operational limits and analytical warnings. It is somewhat unstructured as a single block, but not wasteful; a slight structure improvement would make it perfect.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers usage limits, pagination, data interpretation caveats, and output handling (Chinese column names, preserving nulls). It is complete enough for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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 reported as 0%, so the description compensates by explaining how to use filters (e.g., score ranges for different purposes, helpful sorting, SKU grouping) and pagination strategy. It adds strategic meaning beyond the schema's structural definitions.

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 queries real reviews for a specific Temu product ID, listing filtering and sorting capabilities. It explicitly distinguishes itself from whole-site product search, which differentiates it from sibling search tools.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance (analyzing purchase motives, use cases, positive/negative aspects, etc.) and when-not-to-use (not for whole-site product search), directing users to product search first if no ID is available. It also provides tactical advice on sorting and filtering.

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