Get product reviews

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), yet the description adds a real degradation behavior: if the reviews API is unavailable the caller gets the aggregate only with an empty reviews array and should fall back to rating/count. That is exactly the kind of operational context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then usage, then the failure mode, then the read-only note. Dense and information-rich, though the single long opening sentence packs in more return-shape detail than strictly necessary.

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 two-parameter read tool with a full output schema and complete annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed: identity of the product code, the limit behavior, the sibling routing, and the degraded-response path. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 both `code` and `limit` (including the default 10 / max 50). The description reinforces the limit semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 (fetch reviews for a single product by Alza code) and names exactly what is returned: aggregate rating/count plus individual reviews. It is clearly separable from siblings like get_product and search_products, which it references by name.

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?

Gives explicit trigger ('use after get_product when the user wants real-world feedback before deciding') and an explicit exclusion ('do not use for the aggregate rating alone when you already have it from search_products/get_product'). The agent knows both when and when not to call it.

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