List user reviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that results can be filtered and paginated, but says nothing about auth/permission requirements, rate limits, default page size, or what a review record contains.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but structurally efficient.

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, no annotations, and five parameters (two undocumented), the description is too thin. It never describes the return shape, how pagination tokens relate to startIndex/maxResults, or the translation behavior, leaving the agent to guess at invocation details.

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 60%; token, packageName, and translationLanguage are documented in the schema, while maxResults and startIndex are undocumented in both places. The description's generic 'filtered and paginated' adds no meaning beyond what the schema already conveys and does not compensate for the gap.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('user reviews for an app'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not differentiate from the sibling play_get_review (singular) or clarify scope relative to it, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered and paginated' hints at capability but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never mentions the obvious alternative play_get_review. The agent must infer that this is the bulk-list counterpart to the single-review fetch.

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