reviews_search

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states 'search' without explicitly confirming that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention pagination, sorting defaults, authentication, or any side effects. This minimal disclosure falls short for a search tool.

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 wastes few words. However, the '[App]' prefix is unnecessary clutter, and the lack of any additional structure makes it overly terse for a tool of this complexity.

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?

With 14 parameters, no annotations, and only a vague one-sentence description, the tool is severely under-specified. The output schema exists but does not clarify filter interactions or usage context. This is completely inadequate 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?

The schema has zero description coverage for its 14 parameters, and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameter meanings. Terms like 'body_contains' and 'created_since_days' are left entirely to inference, and 'advanced filtering' is too vague to clarify individual parameters.

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 identifies the tool as searching customer reviews with advanced filtering, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate it from the sibling tool reviews_list, which may also support listing/filtering.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like reviews_list or reviews_get. It lacks any contextual triggers, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the choice entirely to the agent.

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