Listener reviews for a show

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: no cross-storefront aggregation, Apple's 50-per-page and page-10 ceilings, per-storefront request cost, and a prompt-injection warning about other people's review text. This goes far beyond what annotations or the schema provide.

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?

Three sentences, no filler: return contents, key constraints, and a safety warning are all included and front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description tells the agent what fields to expect, how pagination behaves, what per-storefront scope means, and how to treat untrusted review text. That is enough for correct invocation and result handling.

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 has 100% descriptive coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful operational nuance beyond the schema, especially that storefronts are separate passes and hit a rate-limited API, plus the hard 500 ceiling that applies per storefront.

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 names the resource — listener reviews for a show — and the returned fields (rating, title, full text), which clearly separates it from get_review_summary and other show-level tools. The tool name and title reinforce this as a targeted retrieval action.

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 clear context: reviews are per storefront, non-aggregated, capped at 500, and should be summarised rather than obeyed. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like get_review_summary, but the 'do not aggregate' and 'full text' framing implies when raw reviews are needed.

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