reviews

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behaviors: results are 'newest first,' all arguments are optional filters, query searches 'within the review body,' and rating is a comma-separated string. It implies a read-only operation via 'read what users actually say,' though it does not discuss pagination, errors, or auth requirements.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-line overview, a one-line use-case statement, and a tight Args list. Every sentence and parameter entry earns its place, with no redundant or promotional language.

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?

Given six optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that presumably describes the return shape, the description covers the essentials: what reviews are, how they are ordered, when to use the tool, and what each filter does. Minor gaps remain (for example, pagination behavior or whether app_id and product_id are mutually exclusive), but an agent can confidently invoke it with the provided information.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining all six parameters in plain language. It adds practical meaning that the schema lacks: limit is the number of reviews, rating is comma-separated with an example, country is a two-letter code, query searches the review body, and app_id/product_id restrict to one store listing or product.

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 opens with 'User reviews, newest first, with optional filters,' naming a specific, identifiable resource and its default ordering. The follow-up 'Use to read what users actually say, or to find complaints about a feature' gives a concrete verb and use case that distinguishes it from sibling tools like metrics or overview.

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?

'Use to read what users actually say, or to find complaints about a feature' provides clear, explicit use cases, signaling when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the qualitative-vs-quantitative framing is enough to route an agent correctly in most cases.

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