voc_full

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the composite nature and returns shape, but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only status, rate limits, error handling, or permissions. The limit constraint (max 1000) is mentioned, adding some transparency.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a single-sentence purpose, an explanatory note, and a clear args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the formatting is easy to scan.

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 description references the output shape of analyze_reviews, which assumes knowledge of that sibling tool. Without an output schema or further explanation of the AI analysis results, the description is somewhat incomplete. Additionally, no behavioral details (e.g., error handling, idempotency) are provided, leaving gaps for a composite 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 the description compensates effectively. It specifies that asin is a 10-character ASIN, market is a market code or amazon.* domain, and limit is the number of reviews with default 100 and max 1000. This adds valuable meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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 it is a one-shot tool that fetches reviews and runs AI analysis, positioning it as the default for VOC report requests. It identifies the specific action (fetch + analyze) and resource (ASIN), differentiating from siblings like fetch_reviews and analyze_reviews by being a combined operation.

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 provides a clear usage context ('VOC report on this ASIN') and explains the internal composition, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools for separate fetch or analysis tasks. The guidance is adequate but lacks exclusions.

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