get_product_reviews

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the total review count and a paginated list, and supports sorting and limiting. However, it does not mention any session/auth requirements, error handling, or side effects. This is a non-destructive read operation, but the disclosure is somewhat partial, earning a 3.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences with no unnecessary details. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and capabilities.

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, the description must explain return values, and it does mention the key elements: total review count and paginated list. It also clarifies the scope (Carrefour France) and the identification method (EAN/GTIN). While it lacks details like pagination mechanics or default limits, it is reasonably complete for a simple 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?

The input schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage. The description merely repeats that sorting and limiting are supported, adding no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool retrieves customer reviews for a specific product on Carrefour France, identified by EAN/GTIN. It uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('customer reviews') and is distinct from sibling tools like get_products_by_gtins, which focus on product details rather than reviews.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description simply states what it does without placing it in the context of other tools or explaining any prerequisites (e.g., session or authentication), so the usage context is not directly addressed.

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