fetch_reviews

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

With no supplied annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does describe return contents (review text, author info, timestamps, voting data) and mentions time-bounded queries and review-bomb filtering, which is useful. It does not disclose rendering error behavior, rate limiting, or that the operation is strictly read-only beyond the word 'fetch'.

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 compact and front-loaded, with each sentence adding a distinct piece of value: what is fetched, what is returned, and which special capabilities are supported. Some wording such as 'actual' and 'advanced' is slightly vague but harmless.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return contents but leaves details like cursor-based pagination flow and response shape to be inferred. The schema's high coverage softens this gap, but the description alone is not fully self-sufficient.

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%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters. The description adds high-level categories like filtering and pagination but does not add meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema states.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Fetch actual user reviews for a Steam game') and differentiates this tool from siblings like search_steam_games, get_game_info, analyze_reviews, and discussion tools by emphasizing raw review data, review text, pagination, and review-bomb 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 intended use is implied clearly: use this when you need raw user reviews with filtering and pagination. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or explains when to use analyze_reviews or get_game_info instead, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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