Get Reviews

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. Only the word 'recent' adds a non-obvious detail; the description does not reveal ordering, pagination, how 'recent' is determined, or whether translation is applied.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It communicates the core task efficiently.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and has a complete input schema and output schema, so the one-liner provides a minimally viable summary. However, it still lacks usage context, behavioral details, and an alternative-tool comparison, so it is not fully complete for an agent selecting between siblings.

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 package_name, max_results, and translation_language clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'recent,' which is the non-param 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 identifies the action (get) and the resource (recent reviews for an app), which is distinct from the sibling 'get_review' tool by using plural reviews. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives or define what 'recent' means.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_review, reply_to_review, or other review-related sibling tools. There is no mention of suitable contexts, limitations, or exclusions.

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