Get seller feedback

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: result ordering, that aggregate positive/negative totals are returned, and a prompt-injection warning that feedback text is user-authored and must be treated as data. It still omits pagination/volume behavior for a paged endpoint.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and how it is ordered, then the use case, then the safety instruction. No filler; every sentence carries distinct information.

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 read-only, fully-schema-documented list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what comes back, ordering, aggregates, and untrusted-content handling. The only meaningful gap is pagination semantics (page/limit interaction), which the schema covers but the description does not tie together.

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 all seven parameters (page, limit, type, category_id, text_length, exclude_automatic, seller_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond hinting at positive/negative filtering via 'totals' — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource (returns buyer feedback for an LZT Market seller) plus the ordering ('newest first') and the aggregate payload ('positive and negative totals'). It does not name or contrast any sibling tool, but no sibling in the list offers seller feedback, so disambiguation is largely moot.

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?

It gives explicit intended use: 'Use it to judge how reliable a seller is,' which tells the agent the decision this data supports. There is no when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., a seller-profile tool), so it stops short of the top mark.

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