reviews_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List customer reviews' and offers no details about pagination, sorting, filtering capabilities, or any side effects (though likely read-only). This is a minimal restatement of the tool's core action.

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 extremely short but under-specified rather than concisely informative. It does not earn its place because it fails to convey necessary context about parameters or usage; this is closer to under-specification than effective brevity.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. Although an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the lack of usage guidance, parameter semantics, and behavioral detail leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the 5 parameters (sort, limit, app_id, filters, include). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's type definitions, which lack semantic context.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('customer reviews'), with scope ('for an app'). It is unambiguous about the tool's function, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like reviews_search or reviews_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reviews_search for filtered queries or reviews_get for individual reviews. The description lacks any context or exclusions.

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