List reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral constraint the annotations cannot express: the Play API only returns reviews created or edited in roughly the last week, with older ones visible only in Play Console. Pagination/return shape is still unstated.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the critical API limitation placed immediately after it. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description arguably should say what a returned review contains, but the safety annotations and the freshness caveat cover the operationally important gaps for a read-only listing tool with fully documented parameters. Reasonably complete, with return-shape information the main omission.

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 100% and all six parameters are documented there, including prefix matching for language and the PLAY_MCP_PACKAGE default. The description's mention of star rating, language and unanswered-only restates schema content without adding syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Lists recent reviews") plus the supported filter dimensions, which cleanly separates it from get_review and reply_to_review. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the list-vs-single distinction.

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?

Usage is implied through the enumerated filters (star rating, language, unanswered-only) and the note about the Play API's one-week window, which tells the agent not to expect historical data. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or pointer to get_review for a specific review.

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