get_reviews

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral info: max_results limit (max 100) and return structure (ratings, comments, author). However, it omits details like pagination, data freshness, or rate limits.

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?

Concise docstring format with a clear header, parameter descriptions, and return section. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with main purpose.

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?

Covers parameters, defaults, and return type. Output schema exists, so details on return structure are sufficient. Lacks definition of 'recent' or any time-based filtering, but otherwise complete for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains package_name (required), max_results (default 50, max 100), and translation_language (optional), adding meaning beyond schema types. Could clarify translation_language behavior slightly more.

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 'Get recent reviews for an app' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'reply_to_review' by implying retrieval rather than interaction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search, filter) or when not to use it. No mention of prerequisites or context.

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