avito_get_reviews

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

The `readOnlyHint: true` annotation already indicates a non-mutating operation, and the description adds context by specifying the endpoint and the returned structure. It does not contradict the read-only annotation, but it could have mentioned authentication requirements or pagination limits, though the limit parameter is already in the schema. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation, but not deeply.

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 core purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by the essential alternative and parameter documentation. Every sentence provides useful information without fluff, balancing completeness and efficiency.

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 simplicity of a paginated reviews list and the presence of an output schema that defines the response format, the description covers all necessary information: what is returned, pagination parameters, and the alternative for aggregate scores. The output schema eliminates the need to describe the return format further. The description is complete for effective tool 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?

The schema only provides types and defaults for `offset` and `limit` with zero description coverage. The description explains that `offset` is the pagination offset and `limit` is the page size with a maximum of 50, adding crucial semantic meaning beyond the schema. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, going beyond the baseline.

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 that this tool retrieves published reviews on the seller, listing the specific fields (score, text, deal stage, seller's answer) and the API endpoint (`GET /ratings/v1/reviews`). It is easily distinguished from siblings like `avito_get_ratings_info_v1`, which is explicitly referenced for aggregate ratings. The verb 'get' and resource 'reviews' are unambiguous.

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 tells the user when to use this tool (for published reviews) and directs them to use `avito_get_ratings_info_v1` via `avito_call_method` for aggregate ratings. This clear routing prevents misuse and helps the agent select the correct sibling tool.

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