get_reviews

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 clearly states the tool's read-only nature by using 'Get' and describes the output structure (aggregate stats, paginated reviews, sub-ratings), which informs the agent of expected results. It does not mention any side effects or special conditions, but for a simple read operation this is adequate. No contradictions exist since annotations are absent.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the primary purpose, followed by a clear prerequisite and a brief content overview. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy. It is efficiently structured, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function and inputs.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not enumerate return fields. It covers the essential operational context: how to obtain the required parameter, what the tool returns (stats and reviews), and pagination behavior. For a tool with three parameters and clear dependencies, this is fully sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that model_id must come from particular sources (search_products/get_product_details), which is not in the schema. It also reinforces pagination via the phrase 'paginated individual reviews', supplementing the default values. This exceeds the baseline by clarifying the parameter's origin.

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 specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'customer reviews for a Decathlon NL product'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on reviews rather than search or product details. The inclusion of what the tool returns (aggregate stats, paginated reviews, sub-ratings) adds precision.

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 instructs the agent to use the model_id from search_products or get_product_details, which establishes a clear dependency and usage context. It implies this tool should be used after a product is identified, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or contrast with alternative tools for obtaining reviews. Still, the guidance is actionable and unambiguous.

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